South Windsor Public Building Commission
Minutes – Special Meeting – December 11, 2014
A special meeting of the Public Building Commission was held on December 11, 2014 in Room 303 at Ellsworth School, 1737 Main Street. The following people were in attendance:
Members Present: Howard (Hap) Fitts, Carol Kelley, Jim Neary, Charley Lyons, Edward O’Connell & Tim Wentzell
Also Present: SWPS Representatives, Kate Carter and Patrick Hankard and Strategic Building Solutions Representatives Marc Sklenka and Chuck Warrington, Drummey Rosanne Representatives, Jim Barrett and Scott Bristol.
Chairman Fitts called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM.
Approval of Minutes
A motion was made by Mr. Lyons seconded by Mr. O’Connell to approve the minutes of the December 3, 2014 special meeting as presented. Motion passed unanimously.
Owner’s Manager Report
Mr. Warrington provided the commission with an update on the activities that have taken place since the last meeting:
- SBS is currently working on finalizing the contract with Gilbane
- Earlier this week Design Professionals met with the Planning and Zoning and the Town Engineer regarding traffic.
With regard to upcoming activities, Mr. Warrington reported:
- The Informational Meeting will be held on Monday at Orchard Hill at which the neighbors will be updated on the project to date with regard to where the building will be sited. SBS, DRA and Gilbane will be joining the meeting.
- Next Wednesday will be the formal schematic design presentation by DRA.
- It is anticipated that on December 18th the schematic design documents will be distributed for review.
- December 18 through January 6 will be the opportunity for commission members to review the design documents and pose questions to SBS.
Comments will be due to DRA by January 6.
Gilbane will then do its estimates based on the schematic design.
On January 9 there will be an estimating meeting held in order to reconcile the project budget.
Mr. Warrington also advised that high performance building information will be discussed at the next PBC meeting and noted that the commission will need to hire a commissioning agent. It was noted that SBS would recuse themselves of this RFP as they also serve as commissioning agents. Pat Hankard will take the lead in that procurement.
Mr. O’Connell questioned whether selection of HVAC systems had been determined. It was noted that CES will be providing three options for pricing and once they are received, additional conversations will happen with Pat Hankard and the PBC. The options being explored are VAV, VRF and Displacement Ventilation. Mr. Barrett noted that these three systems are defined by the high performance systems.
DRA Update to Schematic Design Documents
Mr. Barrett provided an update and overview of schematic design process to date. He reviewed the overall siting and what guided DRA to the positional location of the building, he noted the wetlands, and the buildable zone and discussed the topography of the site. He reviewed the site plan and noted that the traffic engineer is working hard to understand the traffic counts and pattering. He reviewed the parking areas and drop off areas as well as the proximity of the building to the neighbors, along with the massing model. He reviewed the proposed floor plan and the test plan sheet for the administrative area.
Mr. Wentzell questioned the manner by which the cost estimating can be done when all decisions have not yet been made. Mr. Sklenka noted that the estimators estimate the quantities and that the PBC will figure out the qualities once it is known what can be afforded, continuing that this is the best way to manage expectations. Once the estimating is complete it will be shared with the PBC in order to make decisions regarding the materials. Mr. Barrett noted that the cost estimators will assign the appropriate cost measures based on the schematic design and that there is a lot of discussion regarding the estimates. He also noted his pleasure in working with Gilbane as they are a great team with a lot of current market knowledge and good communications.
Phase 1 and Phase 2 Study Results
Mr. Barrett reviewed the process for the Phase I and Phase II environmental study, noting that because the site was previously used as an agricultural site, both studies were required. He introduced Scott Bristol, Engineer from Milone & MacBroom, to share information regarding the studies. Mr. Bristol advised that the Phase I environmental site assessment was completed in October resulting in a concern regarding the former orchards on the site and the use of pesticides. In late October a sampling plan was developed in order to test the theory. He provided the details of the testing noting that samples were taken from 18 sampling locations at depths of 0”-12” and 12”-24”. The results of the samples provided that 36 tested positive for pesticides, 18 for led arsenic and 8
for herbicides. He continued to note that the pesticides were located in the 0”-12” level, noting that the results were exactly what they would have expected and that there was a correlation between the locations and the former orchard. A meeting was held last Tuesday with the DEEP at which it was recommended that the top 12” of soil be relocated to mounds and covered with new top soil and vegetation. An official notice was filed with the DEEP containing the summary findings and, per statute, the DEEP is required to acknowledge receipt within ten days.
Commission members posed questions regarding the chemicals and the mitigation plan. Mr. O’Connell questioned the height of the mound on the eastern portion of the property, which Mr. Bristol advised would be 8-10 feet. Mr. Neary relayed his concern with the contamination and keeping the kids away from the mound. Mr. Bristol advised that the material will be covered and protected from erosion. He explained that the type of pesticides used adhere very well to soil particles and over the many years at the site, have not leached down through the soil. Mr. Sklenka questioned the number of instances that this type of solution has been applied to a school project. Mr. Bristol advised that the issue is very prevalent in North Central Connecticut because of agricultural use of the
land. He also advised that the DEEP guidance has been around since 1999 and is an effective way of rendering the material safe. In addition, he advised that a soil management plan will be required which will include a long-term maintenance monitoring plan to inspect for erosion on a regular basis.
Mr. Neary questioned the adequacy of the parking in the plan noting his concern that there is never enough parking in town. Mr. Sklenka advised that the Town Planner, Town Engineer, and Police all agreed that the parking is adequate. He continued that in the three to four times per year when there are big events, there are opportunities for parking available in the access drives.
Mr. Wentzell questioned whether sidewalks were proposed between schools and indicated his concern that the schools were connected. Mr. Barrett noted that funding from the Office of School facilities cuts off at the property lines and that all routing within the property line will be taken care of. He also indicated that Milone & MacBroom has been was active with the Safe Routes to School program and reassured Mr. Wentzell that DRA would be looking at options and that the issue would be resolved.
Mr. Wentzell questioned the additional costs associated with the environmental remediation. Mr. Bristol noted that the additional cost would be approximately $200,000 and Mr. Sklenka advised that they have already had preliminary discussions with the estimators and that this exposure has already been accounted for and that there is money in the budget. Mr. Wentzell stated his concern regarding the budget noting that the total is still the total and his concern that there will be something at the end of the project that we wished we would have had that we couldn’t. Mr. Lyons stated that he and Hap have been on the commission for 40 years and have always stayed inside the costs.
Approval of Invoices
A motion was made by Mr. Lyons, seconded by Mr. O’Connell to approve the following invoices:
- Invoice #13187 from Strategic Building Solutions in the amount of $7,228 representing services from October 27, 2014 through November 23, 2014. Motion passed unanimously.
- Invoice#1649251 from The Hartford Courant in the amount of $548.29 for the advertisement of RFP#1415-07.
Discussion: Mr. Neary questioned the additional reimbursable expense charges noted on the SBS bill.
Motion passed unanimously.
Adjournment
On a motion made by Mr. Neary, seconded by Mr. O’Connell the meeting was adjourned at 7:50 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Ann Walsh
Clerk
| 
