Wettish Property Development Sub-Committee October 16, 2008
Special Meeting of Killingworth Park and Recreation Commission and
Wettish Property Development Sub-Committee October 16, 2008
1. Call to order
Special Meeting of the Killingworth Park and Recreation Commission and the Wettish Property Development Advisory Sub-Committee was held Thursday, October 16, 2008 at the Killingworth Town Office Building, 323 Route 81, Killingworth, Connecticut.
Present: Dan Colonia
Susan Otto
Susan Dean
Chris Kelly
Scott Thomas (arrived at 7:20 PM)
Absent: John Machold
Bill Silas
Chairman Dan Colonia called the meeting to order at 7:14 PM.
2. Visitors: Eric Auer
Richard Otto
Glen Johnson
John Figurelli, Weston & Sampson
Glen Johnson introduced himself as a 30+ year Killingworth resident interested in seeing long-needed athletic fields developed in Killingworth. He further stated that he is a professionally licensed engineer in Connecticut with over 35 years experience, including civil engineering and athletic field design and construction. He is interested in serving with the Wettish Property Development Advisory Sub-Committee and was referred by David Gross. Dan Colonia stated that his membership in the advisory group will be discussed at the next Park & Recreation meeting.
3. Wettish Project Budget
Dan received numerous emails regarding the newly distributed budget document. He passed out copies and explained that the budget dated 7/13/08 is the most recent (not 7/30/08) and therefore most up-to-date. (Copies of both budget documents are attached to these minutes.) Dan went on to address each of the emailed comments as follows:
Line 13 – Bill Silas’ email questioned this item. Wooden bark mulch is an approved method of preventing erosion and would cut down on the need for plastic silt fencing and hay bales. Glen Johnson suggested the use of “filter socks” instead of silt fencing. These are similar in price and biodegradable, needing a truck within 1000 ft. to blow in the wood filler.
Line 20 – The use of a systemic pesticide is a timing issue. It is now too late in the season to use, and there is a lot of poison ivy that will not disappear on its own. Eric had suggested a product (costing approximately $500.00), noting it needs to be sprayed.
Lines 23 & 24 – Dan questioned if these figures were reasonable, and Eric confirmed they are, stating it was a large job and big machinery would be needed.
Line 75 – Dan deferred to Susan Otto’s research regarding an entrance gate. This gate is twice the size of the gate Susan researched for the Bethke field, but the group agreed they could substitute a gate similar to the one proposed in the budget at a savings.
Line 76 – The signs at Bethke and Rocco Fields were only $700.00 each installed, so similar signs could be substituted. John Figurelli cautioned that the STEAP Grant guidelines dictate sub-contractor wages, and so on and must be followed.
Line 114 – Dan questioned material testing and John Figurelli explained that if the contractor is held to exact specifications, then there must be inspections and tests, especially in those areas that are not clearly visible, such as driveway base. It would be a conflict of interest if the contractor inspected its own work. Richard Otto explained that “soft costs” include these expenses.
Line 115 – John Figurelli explained that the commission decides on As-Built Drawings. The contractor will charge for them and these could also be deemed a conflict of interest. Glen Johnson gave the example of underground utilities as a reason why As-Builts are necessary and Dan summarized that they should included noting that the STEAP Grant may require them.
Line 120 – Discussion concerned whether first-year field maintenance is a construction cost or an ongoing cost. Chris Kelly clarified that it was included in the construction budget because it is necessary to properly establish the fields, and it may save money to include it in the project. Richard Otto added that the first-year maintenance is essential to the success of the project. Discussion followed and the group agreed that first-year maintenance is a project cost.
Line 121 – The issue of security lighting was discussed. Eric noted that lighting was not represented to the Planning & Zoning committee and if it was added the project would have to go before P & Z again. The commission agreed that there would not be lighting.
Dan further clarifies that the items on page 3 of the budget were “recommended items” or options.
Lines 122 & 130 – The group agreed that soccer goals, fence and netting should be removed from the budget because these are multi-purpose field and other sports were not being represented.
Lines 123 to 128 – It was agreed that irrigation was not an option but rather part of the construction plan.
Line 129 – The group agreed that bleachers should not be included.
Line 133 – Dan explained that he had hoped that the cost of landscape trees could be off-set by a fund-raiser where residents could “buy” a brick in the walkway as a sponsor of the project. Chris Kelly questioned whether landscape trees would interfere with the rural appearance of the project, but Dan added that the trees, a brick walkway and a flagpole would add to the project’s appeal within the community.
Dan went on to question the additional costs incurred in the HK Middle School’s construction for the town Building Inspector. Chris stated that Board of Selectmen could determine the costs and Eric added he would speak to the Cathy Jefferson, Zoning Enforcement Officer.
Dan stated that he would like to see the 5 stone wall items in the budget grouped together for ease of monitoring. The group agreed that the budget items should be organized to group together like items, such as stone walls costs, irrigation expenses, and so on, for ease of use.
Further discussion concerned the need to irrigate all the fields due to the facility’s heavy summer use and the fact that these fields will be game, not practice, fields. It was agreed that there must be a system in place to keep the grass alive. Dan noted that the Park & Recreation Commission will need a budget to maintain the fields in future years.
Chris questioned why there were two top soil line items and Eric noted that the top soil screening and placement costs may be about 10% higher than indicated because of the increase in fuel costs. John Figurelli agreed to investigate both issues, noting that this is a draft needing adjustments and not a final document. Dan added that the commission should not present this to the Board of Selectmen at their next meeting because the commission needed to be more confident in the figures. Richard Otto noted that the 10% contingency for construction overages (line 108) is realistic and necessary.
Chris also questioned what signage was referred to in lines 137 & 138, because the required signage should be included in the project and John Figurelli agreed that lines 94 & 95 covered required signs.
Scot Thomas questioned the difference between lines 65 & 132, and the issue of stone vs. paved access route to fields. The commission discussed the options and agreed that an access route should be rural in appearance while meeting all fire company regulations. Dan will contact Richard Layton, town Building Inspector, to discuss.
John Figurelli recommended a discussion with the Building Inspector, which he would like to participate in, and coordination with the electric company because of low power lines in the area. He added that the Town of Killlingworth should notify the utility companies of the project and provide them with copies of the plan, and questioned whether the town engineer needed copies as well. Dan asked Eric to investigate this issue to prevent any unexpected delays. John also stressed the need to coordinate with the State, and Chris indicated they were provided a copy in August. John requested a copy of the STEAP Grant documentation.
John noted that Weston & Sampson had fulfilled all of their contracted items, and if any future presentations or meetings were necessary, then there would be additional costs incurred. He also added that the designs are finished and presented to Planning & Zoning Commission, if there were to be any significant changes then additional costs would be incurred.
Glen Johnson offered to put together “Front End” specs, since the Town does not have standard specs. The group then discussed “construction administration” costs, estimated at approximately $1,000 per week for the duration of construction, or approximately $26,000. The Town or the Commission could assume the responsibility of day-to-day construction oversight to save money, but the group agreed Weston & Sampson should provide this. Other items discussed included “Clerk of the Works” position, attorney’s fees to review documents, the possible need for greater contingency planning, cost accounting and the role town personnel can play, liability insurance and financing options, all of which are considered “soft costs.”
John Figurelli stated that Weston & Sampson will update the budget document with tonight’s input. Chris questioned the bottom line and projected it at about $1.33M. Eric stated that the Board of Selectmen may not approve a cost above $1.0M, and suggested a discussion of the updated budget costs with the Selectmen.
4. Schedule for October & November
- Working budget for next Wettish Sub-Committee meeting
- Present to Board of Selectmen in November
- Eric questioned drilling the well and three options were discussed: drilling a test well, drilling a smaller 2” test well for water above the bedrock, and a fault-trace option for locating water. John Figurelli stated that Weston & Sampson could amend the contract to include well-drilling, getting three estimates. Chris questioned if this is the best time to drill a well and stressed the need to detail the demand for the irrigation system to determine the amount of water to target. John Figurelli noted that 1 to 1 ½ inches of water per week is optimal to maintain fields, and suggested that to drill the well in a usable location, trees may need to be cleared. Well-placement options, dowsers and the need for a yield test were discussed and the group agreed the most efficient way is to drill a full well. A drilling cost of $7,000 to $10,000 was estimated.
*A motion was made by Chris Kelly and seconded by Susan Otto to have Weston & Sampson give a the Park & Recreation Commission a proposal for drilling a well with a verified capacity, including a yield test. Motion passed unanimously.
5. Weston & Sampson Contract
Bidding documents/bidding support – John Figurelli explained that Weston & Sampson suggests on-sight construction oversight not already included in the contract, and added that Weston & Sampson could provide a line-item cost proposal for additional support. The commission agreed that a menu-like proposal to select options would be helpful.
7. Adjournment
The group scheduled the next meeting of the sub-committee for November 13, 2008 (the second Thursday of November due to Thanksgiving.)
*A motion was made by Susan Otto and seconded by Chris Kelly to adjourn the meeting at 9:20 PM. Motion passed unanimously.
Wettish Property Development Sub-Committee October 16, 2008
1. Call to order
Special Meeting of the Killingworth Park and Recreation Commission and the Wettish Property Development Advisory Sub-Committee was held Thursday, October 16, 2008 at the Killingworth Town Office Building, 323 Route 81, Killingworth, Connecticut.
Present: Dan Colonia
Susan Otto
Susan Dean
Chris Kelly
Scott Thomas (arrived at 7:20 PM)
Absent: John Machold
Bill Silas
Chairman Dan Colonia called the meeting to order at 7:14 PM.
2. Visitors: Eric Auer
Richard Otto
Glen Johnson
John Figurelli, Weston & Sampson
Glen Johnson introduced himself as a 30+ year Killingworth resident interested in seeing long-needed athletic fields developed in Killingworth. He further stated that he is a professionally licensed engineer in Connecticut with over 35 years experience, including civil engineering and athletic field design and construction. He is interested in serving with the Wettish Property Development Advisory Sub-Committee and was referred by David Gross. Dan Colonia stated that his membership in the advisory group will be discussed at the next Park & Recreation meeting.
3. Wettish Project Budget
Dan received numerous emails regarding the newly distributed budget document. He passed out copies and explained that the budget dated 7/13/08 is the most recent (not 7/30/08) and therefore most up-to-date. (Copies of both budget documents are attached to these minutes.) Dan went on to address each of the emailed comments as follows:
Line 13 – Bill Silas’ email questioned this item. Wooden bark mulch is an approved method of preventing erosion and would cut down on the need for plastic silt fencing and hay bales. Glen Johnson suggested the use of “filter socks” instead of silt fencing. These are similar in price and biodegradable, needing a truck within 1000 ft. to blow in the wood filler.
Line 20 – The use of a systemic pesticide is a timing issue. It is now too late in the season to use, and there is a lot of poison ivy that will not disappear on its own. Eric had suggested a product (costing approximately $500.00), noting it needs to be sprayed.
Lines 23 & 24 – Dan questioned if these figures were reasonable, and Eric confirmed they are, stating it was a large job and big machinery would be needed.
Line 75 – Dan deferred to Susan Otto’s research regarding an entrance gate. This gate is twice the size of the gate Susan researched for the Bethke field, but the group agreed they could substitute a gate similar to the one proposed in the budget at a savings.
Line 76 – The signs at Bethke and Rocco Fields were only $700.00 each installed, so similar signs could be substituted. John Figurelli cautioned that the STEAP Grant guidelines dictate sub-contractor wages, and so on and must be followed.
Line 114 – Dan questioned material testing and John Figurelli explained that if the contractor is held to exact specifications, then there must be inspections and tests, especially in those areas that are not clearly visible, such as driveway base. It would be a conflict of interest if the contractor inspected its own work. Richard Otto explained that “soft costs” include these expenses.
Line 115 – John Figurelli explained that the commission decides on As-Built Drawings. The contractor will charge for them and these could also be deemed a conflict of interest. Glen Johnson gave the example of underground utilities as a reason why As-Builts are necessary and Dan summarized that they should included noting that the STEAP Grant may require them.
Line 120 – Discussion concerned whether first-year field maintenance is a construction cost or an ongoing cost. Chris Kelly clarified that it was included in the construction budget because it is necessary to properly establish the fields, and it may save money to include it in the project. Richard Otto added that the first-year maintenance is essential to the success of the project. Discussion followed and the group agreed that first-year maintenance is a project cost.
Line 121 – The issue of security lighting was discussed. Eric noted that lighting was not represented to the Planning & Zoning committee and if it was added the project would have to go before P & Z again. The commission agreed that there would not be lighting.
Dan further clarifies that the items on page 3 of the budget were “recommended items” or options.
Lines 122 & 130 – The group agreed that soccer goals, fence and netting should be removed from the budget because these are multi-purpose field and other sports were not being represented.
Lines 123 to 128 – It was agreed that irrigation was not an option but rather part of the construction plan.
Line 129 – The group agreed that bleachers should not be included.
Line 133 – Dan explained that he had hoped that the cost of landscape trees could be off-set by a fund-raiser where residents could “buy” a brick in the walkway as a sponsor of the project. Chris Kelly questioned whether landscape trees would interfere with the rural appearance of the project, but Dan added that the trees, a brick walkway and a flagpole would add to the project’s appeal within the community.
Dan went on to question the additional costs incurred in the HK Middle School’s construction for the town Building Inspector. Chris stated that Board of Selectmen could determine the costs and Eric added he would speak to the Cathy Jefferson, Zoning Enforcement Officer.
Dan stated that he would like to see the 5 stone wall items in the budget grouped together for ease of monitoring. The group agreed that the budget items should be organized to group together like items, such as stone walls costs, irrigation expenses, and so on, for ease of use.
Further discussion concerned the need to irrigate all the fields due to the facility’s heavy summer use and the fact that these fields will be game, not practice, fields. It was agreed that there must be a system in place to keep the grass alive. Dan noted that the Park & Recreation Commission will need a budget to maintain the fields in future years.
Chris questioned why there were two top soil line items and Eric noted that the top soil screening and placement costs may be about 10% higher than indicated because of the increase in fuel costs. John Figurelli agreed to investigate both issues, noting that this is a draft needing adjustments and not a final document. Dan added that the commission should not present this to the Board of Selectmen at their next meeting because the commission needed to be more confident in the figures. Richard Otto noted that the 10% contingency for construction overages (line 108) is realistic and necessary.
Chris also questioned what signage was referred to in lines 137 & 138, because the required signage should be included in the project and John Figurelli agreed that lines 94 & 95 covered required signs.
Scot Thomas questioned the difference between lines 65 & 132, and the issue of stone vs. paved access route to fields. The commission discussed the options and agreed that an access route should be rural in appearance while meeting all fire company regulations. Dan will contact Richard Layton, town Building Inspector, to discuss.
John Figurelli recommended a discussion with the Building Inspector, which he would like to participate in, and coordination with the electric company because of low power lines in the area. He added that the Town of Killlingworth should notify the utility companies of the project and provide them with copies of the plan, and questioned whether the town engineer needed copies as well. Dan asked Eric to investigate this issue to prevent any unexpected delays. John also stressed the need to coordinate with the State, and Chris indicated they were provided a copy in August. John requested a copy of the STEAP Grant documentation.
John noted that Weston & Sampson had fulfilled all of their contracted items, and if any future presentations or meetings were necessary, then there would be additional costs incurred. He also added that the designs are finished and presented to Planning & Zoning Commission, if there were to be any significant changes then additional costs would be incurred.
Glen Johnson offered to put together “Front End” specs, since the Town does not have standard specs. The group then discussed “construction administration” costs, estimated at approximately $1,000 per week for the duration of construction, or approximately $26,000. The Town or the Commission could assume the responsibility of day-to-day construction oversight to save money, but the group agreed Weston & Sampson should provide this. Other items discussed included “Clerk of the Works” position, attorney’s fees to review documents, the possible need for greater contingency planning, cost accounting and the role town personnel can play, liability insurance and financing options, all of which are considered “soft costs.”
John Figurelli stated that Weston & Sampson will update the budget document with tonight’s input. Chris questioned the bottom line and projected it at about $1.33M. Eric stated that the Board of Selectmen may not approve a cost above $1.0M, and suggested a discussion of the updated budget costs with the Selectmen.
4. Schedule for October & November
- Working budget for next Wettish Sub-Committee meeting
- Present to Board of Selectmen in November
- Eric questioned drilling the well and three options were discussed: drilling a test well, drilling a smaller 2” test well for water above the bedrock, and a fault-trace option for locating water. John Figurelli stated that Weston & Sampson could amend the contract to include well-drilling, getting three estimates. Chris questioned if this is the best time to drill a well and stressed the need to detail the demand for the irrigation system to determine the amount of water to target. John Figurelli noted that 1 to 1 ½ inches of water per week is optimal to maintain fields, and suggested that to drill the well in a usable location, trees may need to be cleared. Well-placement options, dowsers and the need for a yield test were discussed and the group agreed the most efficient way is to drill a full well. A drilling cost of $7,000 to $10,000 was estimated.
*A motion was made by Chris Kelly and seconded by Susan Otto to have Weston & Sampson give a the Park & Recreation Commission a proposal for drilling a well with a verified capacity, including a yield test. Motion passed unanimously.
5. Weston & Sampson Contract
Bidding documents/bidding support – John Figurelli explained that Weston & Sampson suggests on-sight construction oversight not already included in the contract, and added that Weston & Sampson could provide a line-item cost proposal for additional support. The commission agreed that a menu-like proposal to select options would be helpful.
7. Adjournment
The group scheduled the next meeting of the sub-committee for November 13, 2008 (the second Thursday of November due to Thanksgiving.)
*A motion was made by Susan Otto and seconded by Chris Kelly to adjourn the meeting at 9:20 PM. Motion passed unanimously.
