AVON TOWN COUNCIL
MEETING MINUTES
MARCH 31, 2008
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. at the Board of Education's Large Community Room by Chairman Carlson. Members present: Mrs. Samul, Messrs. Pena, and Shea. Absent: Zacchio.
PUBLIC HEARING: None
MINUTES OF PRECEDING MEETING: March 6, 2008
On a motion made by Mr. Pena, seconded by Mr. Shea, it was voted:
RESOLVED: That the Town Council accept the March 6, 2008 minutes as read,
Mrs. Samul, Messrs Carlson, Pena and Shea voted in favor.
COMMUNICATION FROM AUDIENCE – Items not on this Agenda
COMMUNICATION FROM COUNCIL
Mrs. Samul reported another resident on Foxcroft Run mentioned something about the "Carlson Wall" at the Avon High School. Chairman Carlson asked perhaps the Building Committee could meet and come up with some options for the wall.
Mr. Hank Frey, who was present to discuss a separate agenda item, mentioned that the wall is 23 feet high so it is hard to hide but there are trees between Foxcroft and the wall and when the leaves come out it will hide it. Perhaps evergreens will protect the wall year-round so people can't see it, don't know how this is possible, its size is 23 ft, but when the leaves come out you can hardly see it. But they are all deciduous, they all lose there leaves. Chairman Carlson asked if the Committee could you have a landscape architect look at it and perhaps come up with ideas that might be doable. Mr. Frey agreed to talk with Jim Sperry, but mentioned it seems to be a difficult item because of the height of the wall but commented that it is a beautiful wall.
Mrs. Samul stated that she also wanted to commend the robotics team at the High School for winning their championship in Atlanta. It was the UTC competition that they have won four years in a row. Mr. Shea also added that they should commend a local company, Steve McGuff, which sponsors them and funds them to a great extent.
Chairman Carlson, picking up from last meeting, with suggesting that they attend the girl's high school basketball championship game, that they won, compliments to the girls for the hard work and a job well done. Mr. Shea and Mrs. Samul reported that they did attend the game and were cheering for them.
OLD BUSINESS
83/84-163 Presentation: Connecticut DOT Status of State Projects #04-98 Old Farms Road, Project 04-116 (Old Farms Road Bridge #4470) and Project 04-118 (Intersection of Route 10 and Old Farms Road)
Chairman Carlson stated that he had spoken to several Council members about the proposed date of April 14th for the presentation and stated that he thinks that they could make that date work. They have another meeting earlier in the evening but they can make 7:30 p.m.. He confirmed there will be the presentation from the State Department of Transportation and the Post Office issue on the agenda.
On a motion made by Mr. Pena, seconded by Mr. Shea it was voted:
RESOLVED: That the Town Council table Item 83/84-163 to the April 14th, 2008 Special Town Council meeting.
Mrs. Samul, Messrs Carlson, Pena, and Shea voted in favor.
07/08-12 FY 08/09 Budget: Review and Discussion April 7th Public Hearing Presentation
Chairman Carlson reported that he asked the Town Manager to include in the Council packets for the meeting the PowerPoint slides for the Budget presentation for April 7th, next Monday night. It is pretty much the same format as last year. He further reported that on Friday three additional slides were emailed out and they were also put into the Council folders for the evening.
Mr. Pena questioned the, Proposed Budget Summary, and as to whether we should eliminate the Sewers. Chairman Carlson stated that Sewers should be kept in since it is part of the total budget that we are responsible for but the point he always makes when he talks about the sewers is the fact that it is self-funded.
Mr. Pena questioned, Full-Time Employment and Population Growth Over 18 Years, many times, particularly the trend, many people look at part-time, is that something we should add, the number of part-time vs. full-time in prior years? The Town Manager stated that this is full-time positions. Some of them may be split between different budget categories depending on more of a cost distribution factor. We do have the data for part-time and we can add that information into the slide.
Chairman Carlson recommended an additional column to reflect FY 07/08. It seems, if someone was to look at this quickly that jumping from 102 employees to 109, even though the dates are up above it. People tend to think year verses last year; one more column may help this.
Mr. Pena questioned in Additional Costs, we are looking at the energy costs and it maybe a good idea to go back further than FY 07/08 to show how much of an increase there has been. People understand the increase in energy; we deal with it everyday.
Chairman Carlson recommended going back five years and starting with FY 03/04.
Mr. Pena questioned should we be mentioning the Green Energy program? Chairman Carlson stated that he would mention that in his comments. Another point that he would be making on the slide would be that $198,000 represents a sizable percentage, almost a 20%, of the requested increase.
Mr. Pena questioned Capital Improvements. We are talking about Road Surface Improvements of $825,000. It is a lot of money, should we do a detail of what we are talking about there? Chairman Carlson asked for details on this project from the Assistant to the Town Manager for the presentation and did not want to add into the PowerPoint slide.
Mr. Pena questioned the Police Communications Center Upgrade, $250,000 which is a lot of money, if it is an upgrade, not sure if everybody knows what we are talking about when we talk about upgrade.
The Assistant to the Town Manager stated that it is renovations to the space but more importantly it is the equipment in the space that needs to be replaced.
Chairman Carlson stated the Verville Road sewer extension will be paid by sewer fees, and we should indicate that.
Mr. Pena questioned Existing and Projected Net Debt Service, we have the detail $24,062,000 High School Renovations, should we list a year so people would know the year it would come about? Chairman Carlson stated that we have not actually incurred the $24,000,000 yet. Ms. Samul stated that 'Projected' really has to be pointed out and assume that you would be doing that in your comments. Chairman Carlson stated that with the exception of the bottom three there those, Library, Fire Station/Training and Library Renovations are expected to this point. He further reported he will talk to the point that the Library Renovations and Fire Station/Training are, at this point, being discussed but we are not voting on anything.
Mr. Pena referred to the slide that indicates we are talking about new positions. People tend to think we are adding new positions but in reality it is just a promotion.
Chairman Carlson stated when we talk to the FY 07/08 verses FY 08/09 we want to have an asterisk down below that shows a total number of new positions being added in the coming year. The Town Manager responded that we are not adding any new positions. Chairman Carlson stated that is the important message. The Town Manager reported what we were trying to do is tie the actual dollars in rather than positions. We can collapse these in and just give the detail and just give you $60,809, the net of all of these. The Assistant to the Town Manager mentioned removing the 'New Positions' from the top would help since it really doesn't apply here.
07/08-15 Appointment: Town Representative: Plainville Area Cable Television Advisory Council (R-6/30/09)
On a motion made by Mr. Pena, seconded by Mr. Shea it was voted:
RESOLVED: That the Town Council table the appointment to the Plainville Area Cable Television Advisory Council.
Mrs. Samul, Messrs Carlson, Pena, and Shea voted in favor.
07/08-44 Appointment:
a. Town Council Representative - Secret Lake Association (12/31/08)
The Town Manager reported that Peter Marzano has agreed to serve in that capacity.
On a motion made by Mr. Shea, seconded by Mr. Pena, it was voted:
RESOLVED: That the Town Council appointment Peter Marzano to serve as the Town Council Representative of the Secret Lake Association.
Mrs. Samul, Messrs Carlson, Pena, and Shea voted in favor.
Planning and Zoning Commission - Alternate (R – 12/31/09)
On a motion made by Mr. Shea, seconded by Mr. Pena, it was voted:
RESOLVED: That the Town Council table the appointment of an Alternate to the Planning & Zoning Commission.
Mrs. Samul, Messrs Carlson, Pena, and Shea voted in favor.
NEW BUSINESS
07/08-65 Review, Discussion and Approval: Indexing of Tax Circuit Breaker
The Director of Social Services, reported that at its meeting of January 17th, the Committee on Aging reviewed and discussed a presentation by Barbara Zuras, an Avon resident, concerning elderly tax relief benefits. The presentation recommended assisting local participants in the Elderly/Disabled Tax Relief Program by annually adjusting, or indexing the benefit provided to them, by annual percentage increase in the mill rate; thereby providing participants with stabilization of their property taxes. The Town Assessor was present to provide the Committee with data and technical assistance regarding the proposal. After discussion and review, the Committee unanimously voted to support the proposal and recommend its adoption to the Town Council. The Assessor, following the meeting, prepared
an analysis that not only outlines this Tax Relief Option but others that are available by State law.
The Town Assessor reported when we were looking at this we were looking at the various options that we have and this elderly tax program comes up every two years for review and over the years we have looked at the income and benefit and expanded each of them as we felt appropriate. We have to keep, not only the income levels, but the benefits in check so that there was some control, some ability to project where we were headed. We have an analysis that shows what it has cost, as well as, the number of participants, and you can see that in terms of the number of participants in 2003 we had 159, 2004 is the year we increase the income limits and we went up to 188. We are working our way down because there are people who are exiting the program, either through death or moving from the Town. The other
point that we looked at was who needed the benefit the most and it was determined that it was those at the bottom of the income scale, the $0 - $13,000 and $13,001-$18,000, who really needed that benefit so the benefits were structured in that manner. Last year, we looked at the actual benefit amounts and the Council did increase them in some areas by $50 and in some areas by $25. Which did ease the burden of the taxes and it seems to be what has been happening over the past couple of years. Every time it was looked at it was increased by $25 or $50. If we look at this indexing proposal, the indexing proposal comes out with about the same amount except that it is an automatic, and yet you still have the ability to review the benefit, as well as the income, every two years if it is not doing what you want it to do. Now we have 172 participants. If we index the benefits this year we anticipate it would cost an additional $3,000. We also
looked at what it would cost in succeeding years projected to 2010 the program would cost $103,000 assuming the same number of participants. This year we are projecting $97,000 and last year it was $93,000. This gives us the ability to project what it's going to cost us, it keeps it in check, it eases the increase, and we feel it's probably the most effective way to provide the benefit not only for the recipient to understand but also for Town staff to administer. It also creates a bit of equity among all of the participants in that if we only index those that are on the program, and each year index them by an additional amount, we would have neighbors with different benefits. Maybe the need and income is the same but the benefits are different and that would create some inequity and that is why indexing the entire program, the entire benefit would be better than maybe looking at each individual person and indexing them on an annual basis.
Mr. Shea questioned, does it concern the staff or the committee that the number of participants is going down? It's an unfair question but could you talk a bit about how you are trying to advertise this to reach out, inform and educate those who may not know about it.
The Assessor reported he hopes they are getting the word out. We do make ourselves available to go to the Senior Luncheon and it is in the newsletter. Other Towns have programs and we get inquiries from residents who ask if we have a similar program. We also have residents coming in for Veteran's benefits and we tell them, which is the same income information is needed for the Veteran's benefits, we also offer this. It is out there, in fact, when we did increase the limits we did get a lot of people who came forward, and you can see that the numbers did go up. The Director of Social Services added that Social Services points out this benefit.
The Assessor reported when you look at the income limits and you look at the demographics of the community, it’s the older residents who do have the lower incomes, the newer residents, or the active adult residents, the ones who are in their sixties but are still active, their incomes are higher and don't qualify, so we have a limited number of participants, that is shrinking through death and moving. The base participants will shrink, although we have had some influx of the active adult communities in terms of the renters program, which is not part of this but it handles a lot of renters in the senior housing programs. So we do see an increase of our elderly population, but this program is for elderly homeowners. That population is not growing by leaps and bounds; you still have the active adults who
are living here, they have not moved out but when they do they will probably be replaced with a much younger household.
Ms. Samul added that there may be a presentation on the Revaluation and you may want to add a comment on this program to get the word out.
Chairman Carlson recommended that the program, in its entirety, be reviewed on an annual basis to make sure income levels are where they should be. Second, perhaps the dollar amount should be rounded up to the next five dollar increment, so instead of $4.12 it should be $4.15. This would make it a bit simpler and people would remember the number as well.
Mr. Pena questioned that the numbers are decreasing either through moving or death but do we know which one is more so than the other? If people are moving out of the Town because they can't afford it, this is something that we should know. The Assessor replied that is a valid point and that is something they never really looked at before but what they could do in the next annual review is add ages to the reports so that they could track the changes better.
Mr. Pena also questioned if an insert is incorporated into the tax bill or not? The Assessor stated that it is not on the tax bill but the Collector of Revenue does put out a 8 ½ by 11 newsletter that talks about various exceptions and tax credits.
Alice Herrman, representing the Committee on Aging, stated that she did meet with the Director of Social Services and the Assessor about easing some of the financial burden that some of the elderly are faced with and they totally support this proposal. She wanted to answer the question why people move, she stated that she moved into a condo because she didn’t want her husband climbing on a ladder to get the leaves out of the gutter, some people stay in town, some people stay in town due to their kids being in town, some people move out of town due their kids moving out of town. It is not just a financial thing, but do think it is important to find out why they are moving.
Mr. Pena questioned whether or not the Town of Avon has a residency requirement for the program? The Assessor answered no.
On a motion made by Mr. Shea, seconded by Ms. Samul, it was voted:
RESOLVED: That the Town Council approve an annual review of the Indexing of the Tax Circuit Breaker Program and that the Town rounds up to the next $5.00 increment for the Indexing.
Mrs. Samul, Messrs Carlson, Pena, and Shea voted in favor.
07/08-66 Contract Renewal: Dial – A –Ride Programs
a. General Services: $55,598
b. Elderly Daycare:$4,000
The Director of Social Services reported the present contractual agreement between the Town and Management Transportation Services, Inc., McLean Dial-a-Ride program will expire on June 30, 2008. Our current agreement contains a renewal clause for an additional one-year period, contingent upon mutual consent. The company has done a wonderful job and has proposed renewing the contract for an additional year, with a 3% increase in the annual fee from $53,718 to $55,598. We have sufficiently budgeted for the increase for this year.
He further reported on the McLean home, Elderly Daycare Dial-a-Ride portion, the present contract is $4,000 per year and McLean has proposed that we renew this agreement with no increase for the upcoming fiscal year. They provide great service for the elderly daycare and therapeutic activities. They have also provided rides for medical appointments out of town and would recommend that we renew this contract.
Ms. Samul questioned the fee and use structure and how many people and what segments are being used. She reported that she is focused in on age 60 and is age 60 the right number for providing rides to the Senior Center two days a week. Are we offering something that is not being used? If we were to change the age to 65, would that have an impact on what it would cost us since the people aren't there anyways. The Director of Social Services stated that age 60 is the bottom-line but most of the residents that use this program are above the age of 70. There are not too many below the age of 62 that use the program, so it would not impact the cost. The age 60 is just a suggestion from the Greater Hartford Transit District.
Ms. Samul questioned if the fee structure is in line with what the other towns are doing? I know that Dattco in New Britain charges $2.00 each way, but that is the only one I am familiar with. The Director of Social Services replied that some towns charge a $25.00 annual fee, which would be less than the $.50 per ticket that we charge.
Ms. Samul questioned that the program be reviewed on an annual basis.
On a motion made by Mr. Pena, seconded by Mr. Shea, it was voted:
RESOLVED: That the Town Council approve the contract for Dial-a-Ride programs; General Services in the amount of $55,598 and Elderly Daycare in the amount of $4,000.
Mrs. Samul, Messrs Carlson, Pena, and Shea voted in favor.
07/08-67 Review, Discussion and Approve: Purchase of Used Dial-a-Ride Vehicle
The Director of Social Services reported that the Greater Hartford Transit District has advised us of the availability for sale of a vehicle, our currently leased vehicle. This is a vehicle that our contractor has indicated is definitely worth purchasing for the $2,000 which the Transit District is requiring. The Fair Market Value of the vehicle is $2,500 and the contractor has also offered to pick up half of the cost, $1,000, of the total $2,000. Due to the fact that the contractor is familiar with the maintenance of this vehicle and considers it a good investment and would recommend that we purchase the vehicle.
Mr. Pena asked if the contract is responsible for the maintenance and insurance? The Director of Social Services stated that this is all covered under the contract, and the payback of the $1,000 from the contractor would take about five to six months.
On a motion made by Mr. Shea, seconded by Ms. Samul, it was voted:
RESOLVED: That the Town Council approve the purchase of the used 2000 Dial-a-Ride vehicle in the amount of $2,000, of which $1,000 will be refunded by the contractor.
Mrs. Samul, Messrs Carlson, Pena, and Shea voted in favor.
07/08-68 Agreement Renewal: FY 08/09 Town of Farmington Youth Services: $28,000
The Director of Social Services reported the Town of Farmington provides us with a Youth Services Professional; the annual contract is $28,000, of which 50%, $14,000 is paid for by a state grant. The arrangement has worked out very well and the Youth Services Professional has done quite a bit of programming in terms of positive youth development and outreach and has been working close with the high school. He recommended the renewal of the contractual agreement for the upcoming year.
On a motion made by Ms. Samul, seconded by Mr. Pena, it was voted:
RESOLVED: That the Town Council approve the contractual agreement with the Town of Farmington to provide Youth Services to the Town of Avon for the FY 08-09 in the amount of $28,000.
Mrs. Samul, Messrs Carlson, Pena, and Shea voted in favor.
07/08-69 Authorization to Apply for FY 08/09 Youth Services Bureau Grant: $14,000
The Director of Social Services requested permission to pursue continued state money for the local Youth Services Bureau Grant for $14,000.
On a motion made by Mr. Shea, seconded by Ms. Samul, it was voted:
RESOLVED: That the Town Council approve the authorization to apply for FY 08/09 Youth Services Bureau grant for $14,000.
Mrs. Samul, Messrs Carlson, Pena, and Shea voted in favor.
07/08-70 Supplemental Appropriation: $20,250 FY 07/08 Youth Service Bureau Grant
The Director of Social Services stated that he is requesting a supplemental appropriation in the amount of $20,250 to fund expenditures which will be fully reimbursed though the previously approved State of Connecticut Department of Education Youth Services Bureau Grant.
On a motion made by Mr. Shea, seconded by Mr. Pena, it was voted:
RESOLVED: That the Town Council hereby recommends that the Board of Finance amend the FY
07/08 Budget by increasing:
REVENUES
General Fund, Intergovernmental, Youth Services Bureau Grant, Account #01-0330-43383 in the
amount of $20,250.00
And increasing
APPROPRIATIONS
General Fund, Human Services, Service & Consultant, Account #01-4203-52184 in the amount of
$20,250.00 for the purpose of funding expenditures, which will be reimbursed through approved State of
Connecticut Department of Education Youth Services Bureau Grants.
Mrs. Samul, Messrs Carlson, Pena, and Shea voted in favor.
07/08-71 Contract Renewal: FY 08/09 Town of Canton Social Services Agreement
The Director of Social Services reported that the Town of Avon provides Social Services on a contractual basis to the Town of Canton. The only change to the contract would be a 3.5% increase to the Town of Avon for services rendered. This contract worked out well and we are always looking for opportunities to work with our fellow neighbors.
On a motion made by Mr. Pena, seconded by Ms. Samul, Mr. Shea, it was voted:
RESOLVED: That the Town Council approved the contract with the Town of Canton Social Services agreement in the amount of $17,738.00.
Mrs. Samul, Messrs Carlson, Pena, and Shea voted in favor.
07/08-72 Review and Discussion: Avon High School Renovations/Additions Project Commissioning
Hank Frey, Chairman of the Avon High School Building Committee, Chuck Boos and Lindsey Huff reported they are at the meeting to discuss Commissioning and the different levels that could be decided upon. Mr. Frey reported that there are three different levels of Commissioning and it depends on the degree of inspection and testing you are looking for as far as what it is going to cost. Mr. Frey stated that it would probably cost somewhere between $50,000 and $100,000. This is to inspect beyond the new additions/renovations and inspect the entire building to make certain that the areas that are 10 and 15 years old are reliable and functioning as intended. This will make certain that the plumbing mechanical and electrical systems, are working as they are suppose to, and designed properly.
Mr. Boos reported he wanted to speak in favor of it, simply because it's an idea that's time has come. The State is recognizing it. It is to determine it was built according to the plans and specifications and then it has to be put through its paces by people who are knowledgeable. The purpose is to make sure that everything is functioning as designed and to rule out any inconsistency that may have cropped up in the older systems or the new systems. For instance, the HVAC system has 100 or 150 components that do the same thing; the Commissioning is designed to test the majority of those components to make sure they are all working. From an architect's and a resident's point of view, it really is important when you consider the efficient use of energy in a project as large as this to make sure the
systems are tuned properly and are all working as efficiently as possible, so we are not wasting money because they are not properly adjusted.
Mr. Huff reported that Commissioning has been around for a long time. He has been doing Commissioning for the last 18 years. If anyone has any experience with construction, we used to say we will take the first year and work the bugs out of your building, and usually what would happen those bugs would fall on your budget and your facilities people where some of those issues would happen. What we are offering here is nothing more than you have in some of your special inspections, whether it be compaction tests or test on your steel. Commissioning has now been taken into your mechanical systems, in particular, the HVAC systems where the complexity has just sky rocketed with the DDC controls. DDC controls came aboard in the 1990's and with that advent of DDC controls they wanted them to do so much.
DDC controls are Direct Digital Controls, it is something that is very computerized, everything is digitized. Controls are space environment whether it is fresh air to temperature and humidity. Now with DDC we can report back to a computer or we can get offsite, it's now web based. People can look at this from home, if an alarm goes off at night you can check it from home. That is some of the things that the DDC controls can do, but getting back to Commissioning. We use to say we would work the bugs out in the first year, what we are offering now with Commissioning is that we say we will work these bugs out now, while the contractors are on site and while everything is still under warranty. The big thing is when you are going through Commissioning that people are still mobilized and that the bugs that are going to be worked out are things that are typically going to be warranty items. You have that one year warranty and once that is up then everyone is
gone. The other big thing is training for your staff. If you do go out for a RFP you need to make sure this is included. You should make sure that the Commissioning staff is training your facility staff. It's about convey and design intent, we have a multimillion dollar building it's all put out on contract documents and specification and somehow we get this building built but it is not conveyed very clearing on how we are suppose to control a lot of the systems.
Mr. Frey reported there are three different levels that were mentioned earlier, Level one didn't include inspection of older systems, Level two covers all systems and Level three covers fire and safety systems. The bulk of the cost comes from Level one; the others are a smaller percentage of cost. If we do go forward with Commissioning, which the building experts on the Building Committee think we should, I think we should do the whole thing rather than just the more expensive and incomplete Phase one.
Mr. Shea questioned with the several contractors on the Building Committee was the decision unanimous? Mr. Frey stated that the decision was unanimous to come to the Town Council for their decision. We see this as insurance. With things being under warranty for the one year period we see this as the time to find any problems. There are a lot of moving parts in the building.
Mr. Shea questioned if the cost of $50,000 to $100,000, includes phase one, phase two and phase three, or is that mostly phase one? Mr. Frey stated that based on the knowledge that we have, it may be about $50,000 or near that for just phase one, and $10,000 additional for each of the others. Mr. Huff stated that the three phases could be done within the range of $50,000 to $100,000 for this project. It depends on the concentration of the equipment and believes that cost includes some of the contractors support time.
The Assistant to the Town Manager reported that we would have to get some additional costs from FIP because their subcontractors were never asked to spend more time on something like this, to be present when the systems were testing and deal with whatever fallout that there is. Once we know exactly what we want to commission then we need to go back and find out exactly what they would charge to be present.
Mr. Shea questioned why this process has never been done in Avon before and why is not more popular? Mr. Huff stated that back in 1990 when we were trying to sell this idea we started in utilities and saving money. People didn’t really get the idea. What did change are the controls, with the DDC like I mentioned earlier. Things got more complex and they realized that they could save energy and money if things were set up properly. People were spending all this money on these elaborate DDC systems and were not getting what they thought they would get. Then it become easier for us to go in and show them that the payback would be very short and it would save them energy by setting the system up. People who started using this and fell into it are the people who would own
buildings for a long period of time, such as the medical profession and the universities. What is exploding is Rebuilding and LEED, Leadership in Energy and Environment Design, it’s a prerequisite to have Commissioning on this, because a big part of the LEED program is energy and the way they look at it is, if we are going to give credits on this then we need to make sure we are getting the energy efficiently out the building. This has exploded and is even into the school systems. The Cities of New Haven and Bridgeport are in multiple buildings and they have found the benefits especially the facilities people with the education we provide for them. Because of that and the education of the owners and the payback it has become very appetizing for them. Spending $50,000 to make sure it is all set up and running properly and it is going to give you the 25 or 30 years of life that you should get out of the system. The way we go about this and the way you should be asking for
this from different Commissioning agents. At this point in your project we are almost done and we have gone through some phases in this and things are getting covered up and what was offered when it was presented, for example, you have multiple air handlers up on the roof and you have a simple damper control. It says that when your systems are off at night the damper should close so that air does not come in at night and pipes don't freeze. The way we proposed that for everyone is that when we are up on the roof with the contractor we have to have the contractor get into the systems and drive that scenario with, what we would say would be unoccupied mode for the air ducks. It's his system; he owns it and we don't want to mess around with it. If the outside air dampers do not close, we have all the right people there so we go back and get it to work so that the damper closers correctly and we go back and retest it. The other alternative is that you don't do
that and someone just records that you have a problem with the damper on the roof and they just give you a bunch of information but nothing gets fixed. The owner wants it to work and work efficiently. The proposal that is put out in front of you is to be able to sit with the contractors and be able to fix the dampers, in that particular scenario, we offer signed tickets at the end of the day so that the Town is not paying double since the damper should have closed originally. We would only sign the tickets based on the time he spent trying to Commission the systems as opposed to fix some of the issues that he should have had working initially before we got there.
Mr. Frey added that the Certificate of Substantial Completion of phase one of the construction, which was basically the Gymnasium, was in late September, we have four or five months to go before we reach that. We hope we can implement the Commissioning so that we can take advantage of that. Certainly the Substantial Completion of the Cafeteria and kitchen came later, and of course, Substantial Completion of the Media Center and new Academic wing will be sometime in June.
Mr. Pena questioned that it seems to be that most Commissioning seems to start in the design phase, how often do you start late in the construction phase? Mr. Huff stated that about 80% of his jobs are started during the design phase and, again, LEED is driving that. Much of our work in the 90's was done after the fact, which we call Retro Commissioning, and it was driven because the owner was having problems after that first year. We do get involved at various phases, during the construction, six months out, after completion and even years later. As we get into years later it does become a search and destroy method and it gets much more expensive at that point.
Mr. Pena questioned if we were to go ahead with Commissioning and everything is tested and is working properly, is the services continually monitored? Mr. Huff stated that they do continue to monitor. Right now we test the equipment, if there is an issue on the equipment they are tracked to completion, and once they are completed we come back and retest them. Certain things we can’t test when we are onsite. We try to determine which contractor we have a problem with, we tag it with the contractor we think should be dealing with it. We track them once we are back on the portal. We have a web based online portal which is a tracking database. We have the contractor go back on and report that they have fixed the problem. After that we go back and retest the problem. Then we write our
final report. We would talk to everybody about what we found and how we corrected it and give any other additional recommendations that we think would enhance the HVAC, electrical or mechanical system. We monitor the systems while we are on the job after that there is a system within the DDC system, trend logging, which would be your eyes and ears within the building.
Mr. Pena questioned if this encompassed training of the personnel? Mr. Huff stated they train the personnel on how the building should be operated. What the Engineer had in mind when he designed this. We would not sit down and train them on the temperature control systems; you already bought that from the temperature control guy. All we do is make sure he is getting that training from temperature control guy. What we do is sit in a classroom and we go over the building systems, lets just say you have CO2 controls we would training him on what he would see in the room and how it would work and what are the parameters of the CO2. If you see a CO2 reading of 1200 then get out of the room because that is not good, or you have a defective sensor.
You will talk to him about things of that nature. If you have problem areas we would help you set up what needs to be done in those areas. We are looking at the systems as a whole. We do not just look at the heating or the electrical. We look at the systems as a whole.
Mr. Pena questioned what other schools are doing this and is it just new construction or do you do renovations/additions?
Mr. Huff reported that they are currently in the City of New Haven since 2002. They have $1,000,000, School Initiative Program and we have done seven or eight schools there and in the City of Bridgeport, we are in four schools. There are Additions/Renovations projects and some of them are new construction. Wilbur Cross and Hill House High School were both renovations/additions, very large projects and we were brought in after the fact. Also in Milford and Tolland.
Chairman Carlson asked if this was approved by the Council to bid could we expect multiple bids?
Mr. Frey stated that they thought that maybe 10 or more who would bid. Mr. Boos stated that this would probably vary, but we could expect three or four. Mr. Huff added that there is a time element that you need to be concerned with; this is a busy time for the firms. Some of the testing can only be done in the winter, like the heating. Chairman Carlson questioned if this process has been around for several years why didn't we build this into the specs on this project so that we could have done it at design which sounds like it would have been a better way to go? Mr. Frey stated that it is probably all related to cost and the systems are much more complicated now. Chairman Carlson stated that the systems are as complicated now as they were when we started on design a couple of
years ago. Some people could look at this and say you are under budget so now you are going to spend another $100,000 because you have it and we need to be able to answer that question to the public and right now, in my own mind I can't answer that.
Mr. Boos reported that it was a service that is now going to be a State mandate in 2009, which was not on the table in 2004. Don't think it has to do with the fact that we are under budget but think it has to do with what is the right thing and the base line that you want to establish so the building can be as efficient as possible. If you could make the building efficient, it is constant payback. Commissioning will help us establish a baseline so we know if we are operating as efficiently as possible.
Chairman Carlson stated that we are now going to pay a substantial amount of money to make sure the building is going to operate as designed. "I don't understand why that is not part of the $24,000,000 we paid for the building." Mr. Boos stated that this is an additional service which was not on the table. If the building was built and ran properly, you would never really know if it was as efficient as possible because there would be no one person who would come in the building and establish that for you. You would never know if everything was operating properly unless you had a problem. "Greening" of the buildings is really what this whole thing is about, so everything is working as efficient as possible.
Mr. Huff stated that original intent of Commissioning was to double check the work that was being done. People would have some due diligence with the work that they were doing. The other thing is, when you start thinking about the way things go in and all the different contractors that have to put these systems together, things will be overlooked and they will not be tested together, not as a system as a whole. You already test the steel, structure and concrete, this is just carrying it over to the HVAC systems and energy has been a great driver of that.
Ms. Samul stated that the general contractor should be responsible for that. Is FIP not overlooking the various trades and overseeing that things go together correctly and operating correctly, is that not part of their contract? Mr. Frey reported that they believe FIP is doing that and there is no reason to think that the building is not being constructed properly. They are testing the mechanics.
Mr. Boos reported that it is important to note that this is about saving the Town money in the long run through efficiencies of operations.
Ms. Samul questioned is the building "Green" in any specific way? I know it is sophisticated in many of ways but does anything make it stand out? Mr. Frey reported that they are getting a rebate from Northeast Utilities for $44,000 because of energy savings in lighting. There are no solar panels or anything and it has a traditional heating system.
The Town Manager reported that the rise of Commissioning tends to parallel the decline of using a general contractor who is responsible for overseeing the whole project. We now have construction management that tends to be much more decentralized. Everyone expects that the building will operate properly and efficiently. This is an audit and you are going in to audit the systems and the findings can be used to adhere to the contract. That puts a little more rational into buying the service. You can use the report that this was looked at by an independent third party. Mr. Boos stated that an issue here is that if DDH was a successful bidder that should not be regarded as compromising the process in any way. They want the building to perform according to their plans and specification. The Town
Manager stated that he is conceptually in agreement with Ms. Samul and Chairman Carlson with the idea of what you think you are buying. On the other hand, with the complexity of this can see importance of coming in and making sure things are done.
Mr. Frey stated that what they are looking for tonight is for the Town Council to authorize the Building Committee to put out an RFP and see what comes back. Then we will come back to you with the RFP's and decide then if it is something that you want to do.
Mr. Shea questioned the efficiency of the building and how can this be measured? If we were to spend $75,000 on a Phase three, how would we measure the efficiency, is it one year, three years, five years or just the comfort in knowing that you went through this audit? Mr. Huff reported that through his experience this can be measured. Ten years ago this would have been done through metering. Energy Star gives you an energy rating. You can track the baseline and compare it to the energy rating to see where you stand.
Mr. Shea questioned if a manual is supplied for the facilities staff because these employees can come and go? Mr. Huff stated that we do provide training / systems manual. We look at it from the viewpoint that if someone had to come in the building with no prior knowledge they would be able to read it and get up to speed.
Mr. Shea questioned if we were to go to an RFP, who would outline the RFP? Also, is that subject to change orders? If it comes back at $75,000 does that open us up to additional charges or is it all inclusive? Mr. Boos reported that one of the unknown charges is not necessarily in the charge for the RFP but the charges may incur from getting the trade contractors back onto the job to help assist. These costs are outside the RFP.
Chairman Carlson questioned if the RFP has been written for level one, level two or level three? The Assistant to the Town Manager stated that the RFP has not been written yet but Mr. Boos did have the basis of one created that we could use, but we did not put it out until we got a sense if you wanted to go forward with this.
Chairman Carlson stated that he is was very uncomfortable. Having the Engineer bid on the project, this may be normal but as a finance person, do not feel great about that. Furthermore, personally never liked that the Engineer writes the RFP. There has to be somewhere here a degree of hand off that doesn't appear to be there for me. I understand why we think we need do this. I still question why we didn't do this four years ago. Frankly, I never remember us saying we are going to cut this item out and there are other items we did cut that we all remember. If this has been around for 18 years I'm still not convinced why we didn’t do it four years ago. The project is just as complex as it was four years ago. The second issue I have is that the RFP is written by someone who is going to bid on the project, to me
that is not a good bidding process. I think we need to question that, as the owners. I have to answer to the townspeople and to say they designed the project, they audited the project, and they wrote the RFP, that doesn’t feel right to me. The Assistant to the Town Manager stated that another RFP could be found from other sources that would provide some distance there.
Mr. Shea stated that he is in favor of the project but the problem is it is something we will learn five years from now how well spent the $50,000 or $100,000 was and it is difficult to project out if it was money well spent or not. I understand the process and see the value in it, but it is trying to marry up the money and the process with what should be done.
Mr. Shea stated that he would not mind having DVH bidding on the project but understands where Chairman Carlson is coming from with the separation that needs to be there and it might just be a standard document that can be used for all three phases. If we were to do it, I would like to see phase three. Chairman Carlson, Mr. Pena and Ms. Samul all agreed. If this Council was to approve it how would we go about the RFP?
The Assistant to the Town Manager stated that she would have to find one.
Mr. Boos reported that he has had projects with Commissioning services but to put my hands on an RFP that an Engineer has not had their finger prints on is not the easiest thing in the world. I think the City of New Haven could provide the Town with a basis of an RFP rather quickly.
The Assistant to the Town Manager stated that if they were to go forward with this it would be rather quick. We need to develop that RFP, get it out, get it back, evaluate it and we would probably be back at the June meeting with a recommendation. I don't see it happening at the May meeting.
On a motion made by Mr. Shea, seconded by Mr. Pena it was voted:
RESOLVED: That the Town Council approves the request to go out for an RFP with the purpose of putting together an RFP for Commissioning for a level three evaluation for Avon High School.
Mrs. Samul, Messrs Carlson, Pena, and Shea voted in favor.
Ms. Samul commented that she would like to see firewalls between people doing different things. Why isn't FIP already responsible for some of this, at least on the new construction, making sure everything is integrated properly? In construction things happen. I think a level three is a good idea because when you do modifications to anything a major consideration is the integrating of the old with the new, so that they are joined appropriately. Also, I would like to see some training involved. Mr. Frey added that level three does not include the whole building. This would include the entire new section. No section covered the whole building. The Assistant to the Town Manager stated that $50,000 was just on the new addition. You may run into some problems with testing systems where
the contractors who put them in are long gone and they are varying ages. This may open the door to further expenses.
07/08-73 Review and Discussion: Increase in Landfill Fees
The Town Manager reported the Director of Public works is recommending we increase the fees at the landfill for various activities.
Mr. Pena questioned with the increase in the proposed rates what will happen to the operating loss?
The Director of Public Works reported that they may be hard to measure since you are not measure apples to apples. We are changing some of the quantities, volumes and weight but in his estimate we are going to gain a little over $100,000 in two years in additional revenue. You are still a couple of hundred thousand dollars off. It would be close to $100,000 in additional revenue based on past history.
Chairman Carlson reported that the level of increase in the Senior Citizen fees is a 50% increase and that is fairly steep. It went from $50 to $75. Maybe there is a happy medium in-between that will bring that number down a little bit but still is an increase. Mr. Shea recommended that we change the proposed fee from $75.00 to $65.00.
Town Manager added that historically in 1990 we were covering 56% of the landfill costs through fees and we are now down to about 33%, so what we have seen through the years is that most people who use the landfill live in the area and the residents that do use it when the landfill fees go up we see movement to home pickup and when home pickup goes up we see a transition to the landfill. We have about 1500 families in the area that use the landfill, that’s about 20% / 25 % of our households in the community. He further reported that they have had an inquiry about taking in waste from another community on the bulky waste side. In a few years there will be only 10-12 towns that will have a licenses and room to be able to do so. It is an important potential revenue source. On the other hand it
will fill up one side of the landfill and by 2016 at the latest; we anticipate we will be without a bulky waste site. The residents will have to dispose of their brush and bulky waste items in another manner. The cost is going to go significantly higher in terms of that. He strongly supports the increase in the fees to help offset the landfill costs. Chairman Carlson added that he would like to have these fees reviewed on an annual basis.
On a motion made by Mr. Shea, seconded by Mr. Pena it was voted:
RESOLVED: That the Town Council approves the request to increase landfill fees as proposed with the modification of the Senior Fees from $75.00 to $65.00. Schedule attached and made part of the minutes.
Mrs. Samul, Messrs Carlson, Pena, and Shea voted in favor.
Rebecca Perry, a resident on Huckleberry Hill Road, stated that she is a proud user of the Avon landfill and she goes there once at a minimum a week. She questioned if the Town ever thought of drawing residents to the landfill? Maybe have a compromise on the fees so more than 33% of the residents would use the landfill. The Town Manager reported that the issue is the cost and that he would prefer that the Town not have a landfill and have people use contracted haulers so that we do not have to operate one, use tax revenue, and use union labor and benefits. It's expensive. We are always fighting the increases in the tax rate and budget.
07/08-74 Review, Discussion and Adoption: Establishment of Special Revenue Fund (Fund 07) Police Service Fund
The Director of Finance, reported during budget deliberations we discussed this and when we were working on our Policy for Police Services, we actually looked at it back in 2004 and we did not recommend that we move it into a Special Revenue Fund however at this time we are. Especially based on the analysis on the past couple of years and the next couple of years where we are going to see these variances, especially with the state job on Route 44. It is a hard job number to budget in the General Fund and it is self supporting. By moving of the special revenues the revenues will be there to cover expenditures and the administrative fees.
On a motion made by Mr. Shea, seconded by Mr. Pena it was voted:
RESOLVED: That the Town Council authorize the establishment of Special Revenue Fund (Fund 07) Police Service Fund as outlined by the Director of Finance.
Mrs. Samul, Messrs Carlson, Pena, and Shea voted in favor.
07/08-75 Supplemental Appropriation and Bid Award: Sycamore Hills Pool Painting
Chairman Carlson stated that this supplemental appropriation was done in an unusual fashion. It went to the Board of Finance first and now it comes to us.
Mr. Shea states that he reviewed the bid list and that it went to competitive bid and there were four or five bidders.
On a motion made by Mr. Shea, seconded by Mr. Pena it was voted:
RESOLVED: That the Town Council approves the supplemental appropriation for $21,000 and Bid Award to Century Pool Corporation for the Sycamore Hills Pool Painting.
Mrs. Samul, Messrs Carlson, Pena, and Shea voted in favor.
07/08-76 Review and Discussion: Town Council Policy #22: Recognition of 100th Birthday
Chairman Carlson stated that this is a formalization and clarification of the policy.
On a motion made by Mr. Shea, seconded by Mr. Pena it was voted:
RESOLVED: That the Town Council approves the Town Council Policy #22: Recognition of 100th Birthdays as follows: "The Town council, in recognition of the centenarian birthday of a twenty five or more year resident of Avon will be presented on behalf of the Town Council and community a proclamation. An Avon resident who has resided in Avon less than twenty five years will receive a congratulatory letter signed by the Chairman of the Town Council."
Mrs. Samul, Messrs Carlson, Pena, and Shea voted in favor.
07/08-77 Review and Discussion: Town of Avon Debt Policy
The Director of Finance reported that on March 17, 2008 there was a three board meeting and the Superintendent of Schools and Town Manager were asked to provide some guidance in Capital Spending and Debt Issuing. On March 24th, we had our first draft to the Board of Finance that that was based on GFOA (Government Finance Officers Association) recommendations. It was the Best Practices Policy and Debt Services Policy. We also incorporated Policies from three different communities, one being a AAA Community, like Avon. Based on that, we sent it out to the Board of Finance, during that week we were able to send it to our Financial Advisor, Dennis Dixs, and our Bond Council, Doug Gillette. What you have is based on the input for those areas. It is important that we get some broad input on this.
Under Types of Debt Permitted to be Issued and Criteria for Issuance, we are changing the Not Applicable to say Not addressed by this Debt Policy. This is something that the Town of Avon has never used but certainly this is something that the Council can decide to leave in or not.
Under Lease Purchase Financing, our Bond Council is suggesting that we keep just the language on Capital Leasing. We were thinking about putting in Lease Purchase of Capitalized. He is recommending that we might do a joint policy between the Town Council and the Board of Education regarding the Non Capital leases.
Ms. Samul stated that she was trying to find something that differentiated between leasing equipment versus a lease purchase. The Director of Finance replied that they are going to keep it separate. Lease Purchase Financing under the section General Obligation (GO) Comment, he was a little concerned about using the same wording as our Capital Funds definition with a cost of $20,000 in five years. We may need to speak to him on a little more guidance on that.
Chairman Carlson stated that he would be in favor of lease purchase of an item and plus the five years, we should be able to do that out of cash.
Ms. Samul stated that she was speaking about purchasing multiple computers or copiers and then you will get up to that dollar amount. The Director of Finance stated that that was language that would be put in for an Operating Lease, this if for a Capital Lease.
The Town Manager reported that the goal should be to get the appropriate policy in place so that the Board of Education has the option, if they wish to use it, to lease technology or to use it as a financing option so if we need to develop a parallel policy other than the joint policy that we were talking about, then we need to get that going, quickly too.
Chairman Carlson continued with Ms. Samul's comment. What we are trying to get at was a singular lease purchase of one item that was less than $20,000. What we are trying to avoid is where we take one item here and one item there which really aren’t the same project and putting them all together and saying now we have a project that can all be leased. That is getting to the spirit of what we were trying to do.
The Town Manager stated that we are also concerned with the potential of abuse. He further stated that they could retype that section up with Doug Gillette's language and use the mentioning of aggravated or "like kind."
Chairman Carlson stated but where in the policy do we make sure that we don't have happen what was described. Again, it may not be in this paragraph but it should be in here.
The Town Manager stated that we are taking in your input but we can talk to Doug Gillette and let him come back with the language that he is comfortable with.
Chairman Carlson stated that he wants to prevent the Town Manager from coming in to us and saying we are going to do a computer in building five and six and we are going to do a copier for somewhere else and let’s put it all together and go out and lease it all. That to me is not "like project." On the other hand if I am outfitting new computers in a school all at the same time that is "like project."
The Assistant to the Town Manager stated that with most rules of lease financing you can not bundle things together, a police car is much different financing than computers, so you couldn't necessarily put them in the same package.
The Director of Finance questioned if the Council wanted the same kind of language in the Operating Lease, these aren't really that type because then that would never really come into play because you are limited in the number of years. Chairman Carlson stated that we are trying to specifically be able to put a policy in place for a bulk purchase of equipment that does not have a very long lifespan. The Town Manager reported that we could do that under this policy and then we can have an Operating Lease Policy for the individual copiers or for something in that nature.
The Director of Finance reported that she will take the comments back and do her best to incorporate them into the Policy and send another one out.
Ms. Samul reported that from draft one to draft two, she observed that we are going from a 10 year to a 5 year life expectancy. The Town Manager added that this change states less than 10 years of debt. We tried to bring this into conformance of our current Policy of what is a Capital Outlay Item and what is a Capital Budget Items. Capital Outlay is a component in the Operating Budgets for items that are under $20,000 for 5 years or less. If it is $20,000 or more and/or 5 years or more then it goes into the Capital Improvement Program.
Mr. Shea questioned Structural Feature of Debt, Debt Repayment, it states, "The town will restructure bond issues so as to provide that 50%, at a minimum, of the Town's overall outstanding debt will be retired in the succeeding ten years." Can you help me understand that? The Director of Finance reported that is the way we used to do it, under the Debt Services section of the budget, we have always put a paragraph in and the credit rating agencies like that, we talk about the progressive pay down of debt and we try to do a certain percentage in ten years, we try to keep it under 50%, at a minimum.
Mr. Shea reported that his concern is that let's just say we bonded the whole roof at Pine Grove School, because it was the right thing to do and it would have cost us less, so we took out a 20 or 30 year note. It is highly likely that in the first 10 years that we would not have 50% of that note paid back. That is my concern. The Director of Finance stated that it is not on individual item but the overall debt, including all of the projects.
The Director of Finance stated that the other thing that needs to be brought to your attention is that we are talking about Bond Issues versus Bond Anticipation Note Issues and that makes a difference as well. Our Financial Advisor sat down with the Town Manager and I and we looked at where Debt Service Expenditures are and he advised us and we try to structure it in a way to try to extend bond anticipation notes, if we need to, to try to fill in the gaps versus the long term debt of bond. Here we are really talking about the long term outstanding debt. She further reported we are looking for some Council input on this as to Restriction/Limitation on Debt Issuance. We talk here about rolling stock and things of that nature. We are looking for some guidance on things to include or not include. Do you want to be specific or do you want to be general?
Town Manager stated that generally the rating agencies don't like to have, at our level, which is an AAA rating, buying particular equipment on Bond Issue. What he is doing here is using exclusionary/inclusionary options, so that if it is not specifically allowed or prohibited or if it is not strictly prohibited then it is allowed. What we are trying to do here is be specific, if you feel that at some point in the future you want to bond fire trucks, we need to have it in there that you can use vehicle rolling stock.
The Director of Finance reports that he talks about Enterprise Activity, which is a prefect example, of Sewer Funds for issuing debt to the Sewer fund for purchasing a truck. Is that something you want to do or not, that is not General Obligation Debt, not paid back with the tax dollars. Chairman Carlson stated that our limitation is just on the Issuance of the General Obligation (G.O.) Debt, with your example of the sewer funds vehicle that wouldn't be G.O. Debt, wouldn't that be debt occurred by the sewer fund?
The Director of Finance agreed, but he is saying that under that general category, Debt Issuance, either add another subcategory or don't address it at all.
The Town Manager stated that is the way to do it, is just says it is not addressed in this policy. So we can amend it in the future if we wanted to. He brings up a point in here regarding recreational activities. A lot of recreational activities, like pools, gyms, they issue revenue bonds based upon anticipated usage and fees. It is set up so that the fees are set up to retire the debt that you use to buy as opposed to the General Obligations (G.O.) of the Taxpayers from the Town which is based upon the revenues enterprise. So the G.O. Debt is like underlying debt to the revenue producing debt. For some reason your projection on fees did not match up then you would have a default back to a G.O. basis.
The Director of Finance stated then we will not add anything to that section and we will leave it the way it is. She reported we were asked by Tom Gugliotti from the Board of Finance, to expand the particular item. They brought to our attention that we say generally but the Town would only consider issuing debt to a finance a project that has been included in our Capital Improvement Program, but he did bring to our attention, for instance we had the opportunity to purchase land for Open Space, but it is not in the Capital Improvement Program, would we really want to lose this opportunity. So I have requested from our Bond Council some sample language to put in there so that we would be able to have this opportunity if it presents itself.
Chairman Carlson questioned who was to fill in the blank, "The Town generally will only consider financing major capital improvements with a total cost exceeding $xxxxxxx through the issuance of long term debt." The Director of Finance stated that this is something that we feel that both boards should give input on.
The Town Manager reported that we have not set the threshold on this before, we have creeped up but in the past we have looked at this as to whether we can fund it through cash, and we looked at $200,000 to $300,000 per year on phasing basis. If you want to go three years on a cash basis which I think we have had difficulty doing that every year. It may be better to go two years at $300,000 and set the limit at $600,000. Chairman Carlson stated that if we can have some sort of index on this as well, because these policies need to be reviewed.
Mr. Shea questioned if the Council wanted to index it up from $600,000 to $700,000 could they amend it? Indexing it is a good idea but couldn't someone five years from now amend the policy. Chairman Carlson stated that could be done.
The Director of Finance questioned if they are all in agreement with what to use as the index, or do you want me to research those?
Mr. Shea reported that we should way in on the $600,000.
Chairman Carlson questioned is everyone on the Council comfortable with the $600,000? Messrs. Shea, Pena and Ms. Samul all agreed.
The Director of Finance stated under, Investment of Proceeds, she questioned does the Town have a separate investment policy? Yes we do. Is it consistent with this policy? Then it states, would it be better simply to cross reference the investment policy. We can change the language to reflect that since we do have an investment policy. Those were the high points of the major changes.
Mr. Shea questioned Refunding of Existing Debt. It states that, to restructure debt service only if the present value of debt service savings exceeds two (2%) percent of the debt service amount of the refunded bonds. Could you give us your thought on that?
The Town Manager explained that they are saying that it needs to meet this credential or you'll basically call your bonds or refinance by calling in the old ones and refinancing with a new issue. This has to be 2% of the debt service amount not the rate.
Mr. Shea questioned say you refund the debt and you add another roof and you go and refinance the debt you are actually increasing your long term debt.
The Town Manager reported this would be a different issue than what we are speaking of. If you have one callable issue, two or three, you may have one that meets the 2% criteria, you may have one that’s 3%, so you do both of them and you come out with more the 2%, or you have one under 2% so under this policy you wouldn’t call it and reissue it. We usually don't have callable issues. It is important to emphasize that a lot of our borrowing is pretty plain basic General Obligation Bond; we are not involved with a lot of complicated financing.
The Director of Finance stated that one important thing that we will get out of this policy, although it was not the intent of the three board meeting, is that it is looked at favorably from the credit agency to have formal policies and as soon as we do formalize this, a copy will be sent out to Moody's and Standard and Poor's, which is a good thing for the Town.
07/08-78 Resignation: Marianne Clark, Zoning Board of Appeals, Alternate
On a motion made by Mr. Shea, seconded by Mr. Pena it was voted:
RESOLVED: That the Town Council accept, with regret, the resignation of Marianne Clark as an alternate from the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Mrs. Samul, Messrs Carlson, Pena, and Shea voted in favor.
07/08-79 Appointment: Zoning Board of Appeals, Alternate (R-2009)_
On a motion made by Mr. Shea, seconded by Mr. Pena it was voted:
RESOLVED: That the Town Council table the Appointment of an Alternate to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Mrs. Samul, Messrs Carlson, Pena, and Shea voted in favor.
07/08-80 Authorization to Apply for FY 07/08 LoCIP Grant: $103,691
On a motion made by Ms. Samul, seconded by Mr. Pena it was voted:
RESOLVED: That the Town Council approve the authorization to apply for the FY 07/08 LoCIP Grant for $103,691.
Mrs. Samul, Messrs Carlson, Pena, and Shea voted in favor.
07/08-81 Review and Discussion: Watershed Conservation Compact
Ms. Samul questioned where does this document come from? She couldn't understand what the purpose of the resolution was, what are we really committing ourselves to?
The Town Manager reported that he had the same concerns so he asked the Town Planner to investigate this to find out what is behind it and they are just looking for a letter of support. We couldn’t find any impending events or other reason why. We are going to have a presentation from Harry Spring and Diane Fields, who are the Town Council representative on the Wild and Scenic River Committee that is studying the lower part of the Farmington River, for the Congressional Designation. They will be coming in May 1st to make a presentation that will be about 45 minutes in length. This could be tabled until then if you are uncomfortable with it.
Ms. Samul stated that she thought that would be a wise course of action.
On a motion made by Mr. Pena, seconded by Ms. Samul it was voted:
RESOLVED: That the Town Council table the Watershed Conservation Compact to the May 1st Town Council meeting.
Mrs. Samul, Messrs Carlson, Pena, and Shea voted in favor.
Town Manager requested an item be added to the agenda, item #07/08-82 To Set the Polling Hours of the Budget Referendum from 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. The Statue just does it from 12:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. so if we want to have the polls open from 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., then we need to adopt a resolution to set the poll hours. So, first it needs to be added to the agenda and second hopefully you will approve it.
On a motion made by Mr. Pena, seconded by Mr. Shea it was voted:
RESOLVED: That the Town Council approves the addition of item 07/08-82 Set the Polling Hours of the Budget Referendum, to the agenda.
Mrs. Samul, Messrs Carlson, Pena, and Shea voted in favor.
07/08-82 Set the Polling Hours of the Budget Referendum
On a motion made by Mr. Shea, seconded by Mr. Pena it was voted:
RESOLVED: That the Town Council approve the extension of the Polling Hours of the Town Referendum from 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on May 14, 2008.
Mrs. Samul, Messrs Carlson, Pena, and Shea voted in favor.
TOWN MANAGER’S REPORT/MISCELLANEOUS
The Assistant to the Town Manager reported that the moving day for Buildings 5 and 6 is the 10th and 11th of April and they are all set to move back in. We are planning for the dedication ceremony at the May 1st meeting being back in the regular space. It will be open to the public as well.
Ms. Samul stated that she had heard about the fumes in Building 7 and that it needed to be shut down. The Assistant to the Town Manager reported that everyone is ok, it was some concrete sealer that was used on a mud slab in the basement, and it was not properly vented and some fumes traveled through the duct work into Building 7. Two people received some oxygen and they felt fine. We are researching some ways to finish that job safely or with a different product.
The High School, last meeting we spoke about painting the maintenance garage at the Avon High School and we did get a price of $3,529.00. The Building Committee thinks it looks nice the way it is and does not recommend it because it will add future work of repainting. Should you really want to do that we could.
Chairman Carlson reported it was Dr. Kisiel that mentioned painting it.
The Assistant to the Town Manager reported that the project is slightly behind schedule. It was suppose to be substantially complete on April 18th and now it will be more like April 30th. It will be a race to the finish, although it does not have an adverse impact since we will not be using that section of the school until next fall. We will be paying the Board of Education back $50,000 for additional electricity usage for the school from July thru December. We anticipate further expenses for the natural gas and electricity from January 1st this year to the end of April.
The Assistant to the Town Manager reported for the Senior Center and Department of Public Works roofs, we received two bids for the projects that are in the Capital Budget for next year. The Public Works roof was way below budget and the Senior Center was above. We are talking to the bidders on the Senior Center to make sure they got the figures correct. We should be able to do both projects with no reduction to the bottom line. We will shift money from one to the other.
The Assistant to the Town Manager reported the Library is underway with design. We have a meeting the first and third Wednesday's, so we have a meeting this Wednesday. We are in bit of a challenge when it comes to the design and the amount of parking that is required for the building program and staying within the Planning and Zoning guidelines with no more than 35% of the total site being solid surface. We met with the Architect and the Town Planner this afternoon and we may be asking the Planning and Zoning Commission to amend the regulations to allow for us to apply for an exception if we can not get down to the 35%. We may be able to get down to 40% or 42% but it is only a 3.8 acre site and it is very difficult to fit all of the program needs that we need to have in there. Chairman Carlson questioned if Planning
and Zoning was asked to amend there regulations or asked for an exception? The Assistant to the Town Manager stated that the regulations do not allow you to apply for an exception. You need to put that step in and then you have to go and apply for it. It is not as straight forward as just applying for it. Chairman Carlson reported that he thinks they should be very cautious of that.
Town Manager stated that when they were thinking about purchasing the former Mackie Property, it was not the most desirable piece for actual practical use but it provided us with the Open Space needed to meet the requirements. He reported that he will go through the files to see if we can find something because he thought we had somewhere a letter or something that indicated because we decided not to buys that property based upon the fact that we could get an exception if we needed it.
Ms Robinson stated there is an exception for the size of the building but it doesn’t allow you an exception for the total which included the parking, driveways and sidewalks. The building will have to have 24,000 square feet on the first floor. That is within the 15% factor that you use but once you add all the other elements in, it doesn't quite work, and it you don’t meet the program then you are not able to apply for the grant of $1,000,000 which we would want to get, and if you try to put some of the program into the basement then you have an issues with staffing needs to enable them to work on three floors. One factor drives another; it's not just a simple answer.
Ms. Samul questioned if some of the parking can be put on impervious surfaces.
The Assistant to the Town Managers stated it would have to be several spaces on the impervious surfaces. That is one of the issues that came up today with the right-a-way, it's green space but it is right-a-way. That is not usually counted. It would have to be 20-30 spaces where we would have to use grass pavers and that may not work well. Mr. Pena added that the grass pavers really do not work so well. They were used at Valley Baptist and they have problems with it.
The Assistant to the Town Manager reported that the plan is to keep the current facade the way it is and push out towards the side street in the back towards Sunnybrook. Keeping the roof theme the way they are because the residents really like the way the library fits into the residential neighborhood. Keeping the scale will help it not feel as big as it will end up being. The problem with that is the second floor does not have enough usable space because of the angled roofs. Mr. Shea questioned if it is possible to shrink the footprint of the building at all. The Assistant to the Town Manager reported that it can not be done and achieve the program. Taking out any real walls in the building to try to maximize space we are still coming out to about 24,000 square feet.
The Town Manager reported that two other issues that need to be discussed --- do we want to recapture the money that we spent out of the surplus for those two houses that we took down, and put that into the bonding issue. You are talking around $600,000 do you want to recapture that and put it back in? The second issue, and I got clarification of this from our Librarian after our meeting with Mary Suter, the president of the Library Board, there does not seem to be at this time any intention, or confusion, if they are going to provide funding to reduce the amount of the project or if they are going to provide funding to provide additional amenities to the project. Ginny Vocelli, Director of the Library, basically said it was the latter. They are looking to raise money to provide finishes and other thing that may be
appropriate to the project instead of providing the Town a check to offset the cost of it. That is an issue that we may need to discuss with the Library Board. A suggestion that would be if they want to get into fixtures, furniture and equipment then we take that out of the budget and that becomes their fundraising operation to provide those items. This gives them the ability to order that they want since they will be providing the money. That is another issue that we will have to discuss.
Mr. Shea stated that he would be opposed to bonding the two houses that they paid for out of surplus. Has the auditors brought that up and does that threaten our AAA rating? The Town Manager reported that it does not threaten our rating. It was just a way to increase the surplus, since it is on the low side.
Mr. Shea reported that he is just concerned with the Debt Service line. We never really got to my question at the last meeting, how do we really come up with a number for this project. We are talking about the state grant potential. The Town Manager reported that is why he brought up the perceptions of what they do and don't do.
Chairman Carlson questioned if they signed off on what the program is? The Town Manager stated that they need to provide a statement of need which they did sometime ago with the long range plan, which is something that the Library Building Committee has been working on. Also, another driver on that is the state with the grant. They have template that they put on your facilities and everything else that brings in the population and all these different factors. That drives that program as well.
The Assistant to the Town Manager reported that if you do not have all of the aspects that they require and they look 20 years in the future they will deny it and you will not get the grant.
Chairman Carlson stated that he is concerned that we can go out and bid and bond the program and they can go out and raise money. The program may call for things that we do not agree with. The Assistant to the Town Manager stated that we can choose not to go for the grant if we do not wish to have, or be held to the program requirements.
Chairman Carlson reported that he is more to the Library Board that this is what we want and now we are obligated to bid that and bond it and on the other hand they can go raise the money for things that are not even in the program.
Ms. Samul reported that in the past any money raised by the Library Board went towards reducing the cost of the Library itself that goes back to the initial building in 1980.
Mr. Shea stated that we will have to wait and get an estimate from the architect.
The Assistant to the Town Manager stated that they are trying to come up with a plan that works on the site and meets the program and take that to the Planning and Zoning Committee.
The Assistant to the Town Manager reported that a basement is being planned but it would be for book sorting but if we put a meeting room down there we would have to have staff for the daytime, we would also need to have bathrooms for the people using the meeting room. That would add costs to finish the basement area if it was to be downstairs but if it was upstairs it would be a bigger footprint.
The Town Manager reported that one of the issues that we are dealing with is the debt policy. If we are able to take items out of the Capital Budget to do and to bond them we will still need substantial amounts of cash to do exactly what we are talking about here, the design work up front. If you take the Communications Center out and the Town Clerk's vault expansion, Gary Franzi said he absolutely can not take the Boiler out. So there are limited items that we can take out of the Capital Improvement Programs, that we are talking about to start on July 1, 2008, but we are going o have to put money in there to start the design work on the Communications Center and the Town Clerk's Vault so the savings aren’t going to be the full amount.
Chairman Carlson questioned if anything needs to be bonded for?
The Assistant to the Town Manager reported that it was to get someone to wait for the following summer. We will put the boiler in with cash this year and the controls in the following year. It was $250,000 for the boiler and $153,000 for the controls.
The Town Manager reported that some other issues coming down the road with this is if we do a debt bundled bond thing are we going to have one question or multiple questions on the ballot.
Mr. Shea reported that the objective was large. Going back to the Middle School roof since we only did half of it and it begs the question should we do the whole thing to get a better price and get a better product. It is something that will last more than 20 or 30 years so you can sort of justify it. That is my thought.
Mr. Pena questioned if the Council should make the Library Building Committee aware of the possibility of having the building Commissioned? The Assistant to the Town Manager reported that if they are going to go with the grant then you have to have some of the steps of LEED certification, you don't have to be fully LEED certified but we will look at then decide.
Town Manager reported that Brett Eisenlohr, Board of Finance member, and who is deeply into energy policy has been encouraging us to look at solar activities. We have a whole bunch of these projects coming up. How serious do you want to get. Like on the Library, do you want solar roofing or do you want us to get an option on all of that in the schematic phase. The Assistant to the Town Manager reported that it is cost effective analysis with each building. Chairman Carlson stated that it should be bid as an alternate and we can look at what the savings are.
The Assistant to the Town Manager reported that Purchasing has been a major focus of her office in the past few weeks. We will bring Street Sweeping to you for approval on next Wednesday, April 9, 2008, agenda. We are awaiting bids and the Emergency Generator Maintenance and Transfer Station Refuse Disposal on the 9th.
The Assistant to the Town Manager reported OPM grant, there is not a lot happening with this right now. CRCOG is waiting for the contracts from OPM to come through and be signed and then the money to come through by the end of the fiscal year. Some of these projects are starting to move forward but really nothing can happen until that takes place. With all of the projects only eight of them are applicable to Avon. Chairman Carlson reported that he noted a Law Enforcement Training Center and we have had a lot of push back that you can't do a regional fire training center. I would suggest that we put that on a future OPM request list that they look at a Regional Fire Training Center. The Assistant to the Town Manager stated that she believed that the legislation is still alive to continue this grant program
since it was well received by CRCOG, so that is a good one to inform them of.
The Assistant to the Town Manager reported regarding the 20% by 2010 Campaign, I have started to put this together as an action item on the agenda but we weren't able to solve the puzzle of how we are going to pay for the first couple of years so I specially outlined for you what would have to happen and attached a sample resolution. Right now what we are trying to get to is a recommendation is how it will be paid for in doing that and determined that about two thirds of the electricity in the Town is used by the Board of Education and the rest is by the Town. The information has been sent to Gary Franzi at the Board of Education and asked them to get back to me and let me know if they are willing to pick up two thirds of the cost and the Town pick up the rest. I'm sure he will say, as we can say for us, that there is no
good account that is under spent that we can take it from but it is a small amount of money and we can make it up and transfer it from somewhere else, if that is something you want to do. We will wait to hear back from him. Mr. Shea questioned if this is something that we have to do? The Assistant to the Town Manager stated that this is something that is purely at the Council's preference. It is whether you want to support the types of firms that are growing these Green energy initiatives, wind, solar and water, or not. There are small solar panels that are to be gotten when you get to a certain threshold they don't generate any electricity that you can count but could be used as a teaching tool which would be great. It does not preclude us from participating in any programs that we participate in right now like CL&P rebates for lighting and HVAC systems, deciding to put a solar roof on a school, looking at CNG for a rebate for Roaring Brook School
Boiler. We will still do all of those things. This is a campaign that people just want to do but there is a cost. By 2008 if we go out with an RFP depending on which firm it would be $1800 to $4200 the first year. The National Supply is the lowest cost and the Sterling Planet is the highest. When you go with the RFP you can ask for a rebate for every resident that signs up for the Sterling program through their CL&P bill and designates the town that $10 to $15 per household that we can use to offset some of the costs if we get them. You have to consider it an out of pocket cost for something that you just think is important. Chairman Carlson questioned if this should be tabled to the May meeting?
The Assistant to the Town Manager replied that she would recommend that, since Mr. Franzi should have replied by that point.
The Town Manager reported that there is a memo from the Town Assessor about Russ Peckham and questioned if the Council would like a proclamation prepared for him? Chairman Carlson reported that the Council would like this to be done.
Town Manager reported that the Kevin Witkos, our legislator, called and said that we had received a $309,500 STEAP (Small Town Economic Assistance Program) grant for street lighting, and sidewalks in the center of Avon.
EXECUTIVE SESSION: Litigation/Negotiation
On a motion made by Mr. Shea, seconded by Mr. Pena it was voted:
RESOLVED: That the Town Council go into Executive Session at 10:55 p.m. to discuss land
negotiation and personnel issues.
Mrs. Samul, Messrs Carlson, Pena, and Shea voted in favor.
Present: Town Manager, Assistant to the Town Manager, Town Council Clerk.
On a motion made by Mr. Shea, seconded by Mr. Pena, it was voted:
RESOLVED: That the Town Council come out of Executive Session at 11:05 p.m.
Mrs. Samul, Messrs Carlson, Pena, and Shea voted in favor.
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 11:05 p.m.
Attest:
Caroline B. LaMonica
Clerk
| 
