North Stonington Volunteer Fire Company
EMS Building Committee
Meeting Minutes for June 10, 2014
Location: North Stonington Volunteer Fire Company – Meeting Room
267 Norwich-Westerly Rd., North Stonington CT
In Attendance: Mark Perkins, Chairman; Joe Cassata, Vice Chairman; Charles Steinhart, V; Jon Bosma; Ryan Burdick; Greg Howell; Paul Kowack; Bob Shabunia; Brian Elias; Kati Murphy, Secretary;
Meeting called to order at 7:03 PM by Chairman Perkins
Minutes: Motion by Charles Steinhart, V to accept the minutes of May 27, second by Joe Cassata. Motion passed.
Correspondence, Bills, and Invoices:
Invoice # 060114 from Peter Springsteel in the amount of $281.25 approved.
Public Comment: Joe Gross questioned whether or not this new building scheme was supportive of the 20 year plan.
New Business:
It was request by Chairman Perkins that any correspondence to Silver Petrucelli first go through him and Kati Murphy, to be forwarded.
Bob Shabunia received correspondence from the Department of Public Health, relative to grants and low interest loans available through DPH for upgrades/improvements to public water systems. This could be something for the Committee to consider if the STEAP application is not successful.
On June 4 Mark Perkins, Joe Cassata and Nick Mullane, along with Don Smith of Silver Petrucelli, met with the Zoning Enforcement Official to go over the site plan. ZEO had no major issues with the plan. It was learned at this meeting that although the special permit requires 65 days, Planning and Zoning can approve sooner, if they so choose. We could still be on track with beginning site excavation in October or November.
Test holes were also excavated on June 4. Some holes did encounter ledge at 12’-15’. However, this does not appear to pose a major issue. It was suggested during the digging of the test holes that rather than hauling the excavated material off site, and/or up the hill, that a cut and fill process be utilized instead. This would reduce the amount of excavated material by approximately 30K CY, and would also reduce the cost of the site work. Paul would like to see the new estimate for site work under method. Don Smith has begun preliminary work on a new site plan utilizing this method. A copy of the preliminary plan was shared with the Committee. All appeared to be in agreement that this was a more effective and efficient process. This new site plan has the building situated
differently on the site than the previous plan. There were questions on the effects this reconfigured plan would have on various aspects of the building. A laundry list of questions (attached) for Silver Petrucelli was compiled by the Committee and Kati Murphy will email the questions to David Stein. A conference call between SP and the Chairman/Vice Chair was scheduled during the meeting for June 13.
Paul Kowack brought up the subject of who is responsible for covering the cost of the test holes. Don Smith had wanted the town to cover this amount – approximately $1,000. The Committee’s understanding was that this is an item included in the Agreement between the town and SP and that it is SP’s responsibility to cover it. We would be setting a precedent if we started picking up the tab for items such as this. There also appeared to be some redundancies relative to activities such as survey. Mark Perkins and Paul Kowack will monitor and Paul will draft a correspondence to SP and Don Smith to address these matters.
Old Business:
The next meeting between Silver Petrucelli and the Committee is scheduled for Tuesday, June 17. Bob Shabunia suggested pushing it back a week so that the Committee had time to review and digest all of the information. The meeting date of June 17 was not changed, but could be after the June 13 conference call.
General consensus of the Committee was that we still do not have a strong handle on what costs will be. When the time comes, the Committee is strongly considering a third party estimator to confirm SP’s projections. The question came up that supposing the estimator’s figures are in line with those of SP. Mark and Joe indicated that if that were to happen then they would go to the Board of Finance. Bob Shabunia pointed out that the design is still at 50%. Will there be major changes necessary to the building if we are going with a different site plan. This will be addressed in the June 13 conference call, but major changes most likely are not necessary.
There are place holders in SP’s Probable Construction Costs. The Committee needs a better handle on some, such as bonding, insurance and legal costs. Mark will request assistance on some of these from the Selectmen’s office.
It was agreed by the Committee that Peter Springsteel is not being utilized enough and that he should be asked for more input/feedback. A conference call to him will be scheduled with Mark Perkins and Joe Cassata, and any interested parties, later this week to discuss.
Motion to adjourn was made by Paul Kowack, second by John Bosma. Motion passed and meeting adjourned at 8:18 PM
June 10 Comments/Questions for Silver Petrucelli
- Relative to the most recent site scheme proposed, where will the main entrance to the building be located?
- We would like to see the correct building footprint, along with room dimensions, on the new proposed site scheme.
Whereon the building will the main entry points for power and water be located in this scheme.
Has future expansion been taken into consideration in this scheme?
The new site scheme proposal puts us closer to the intersection of Rocky Hollow and Rt 2. Will there be any traffic impact? Will there be enough turning radius for apparatus leaving?
Under the new proposed scheme, the road into the site needs to be widened to at least 30’.
Does the turn out for last apparatus bay change? We would like validation of turning radius for front and rear lots relative to parking and moving apparatus.
Will the driveway to the training pad be paved or gravel, or is that TBD? And what is the % of grade to that site.
Do we need anything from DOT relative to construction traffic entering/leaving site onto Rt. @?
How are we managing runoff and is it adequate?
Where will HP parking be located relative to main entrance?
Where in the Schematic Design Report of May 27 is the information from the MEP meeting?
Where in the building is there any room for file storage?
Why are the stove and exhaust hood located on the interior wall? Isn’t’ it more cost effective to have it located on an outside wall?
Is Silver Petrucelli able to send the “program summary” form the May 27 Schematic Design Report to us as a Word document for us to comment on?
Is Silver Petrucelli able to send us an update of the MS Project plan?
| 