Willington Housing Authority
60 Old Farms Road
March 12, 2012 Meeting Minutes
Present: WHA Chair Robert Campbell; Vice Chair Wilbur Gangaway; Treasurer Claudia D’Agata; member Don Berg; financial consultant David Berto; architect Bill Crosskey; WHA Recording Secretary Brenda Sullivan.
Call to Order: The meeting was called to order by WHA Chair R. Campbell at 6:05 p.m.
New Business: There was no new business.
Approval of Minutes: (W. Gangaway moved, C. D’Agata seconded) The Feb. 13, 2012 minutes were approved as corrected, with the following correction: Line 95, delete “D. Berg noted propane currently is half the price of oil.”
Treasurer’s Report: Accepted as submitted by Treasurer C. D’Agata, who reported a balance of $5,575.52. R. Campbell asked D. Berto to explore if there’s a budget line item to put money back into the account to cover recording secretary expenses.
Present to Speak: No members of the public were present to speak.
Old Business:
R. Campbell reported that the project Engineer Eric Peterson got necessary signatures on the Wetlands Permit in late February.
D. Berto reported he received information he needed from E. Peterson and B. Crosskey, including a copy of the minutes from the PZC Dec. 6 2011 meeting, a list of conditions for the permit approval, and engineering comments (from Nathan L. Jacobson & Associates, Inc.).
D. Berto distributed the Oct. 18, 2011 memo from Nathan L. Jacobson & Associates, Inc. addressed to Planner-Zoning/Wetlands Agent Susan Yorgensen with comments on the company’s engineering review, itemizing those concerns addressed/not addressed. D. Berto said E. Peterson is now working with B. Crosskey to make sure all are addressed. There is nothing new or of concern on the list, D. Berto said.
R. Campbell noted S. Yorgensen is expected to be out of the office at the end of March, so he would like her to provide a memo to the PZC that all conditions/requirements have been addressed, before she leaves.
There was discussion about fulfilling the active-recreation requirement for the project, including a possible bocce court (raised by S. Yorgensen) which was not favored by the WHA because it would require grading the site and would need regular and specialized mowing. R. Campbell noted Public Works Director said the town doesn’t have funds to do additional mowing. Another alternative might be a shuffle board court.
The members also talked about the stone gravel walking paths, which are more likely to be used and easier to maintain.
There was discussion of moving forward with the Board of Selectmen addressing its role in the project and bringing those agreements (i.e. potential tax breaks) to a Town Meeting. R. Campbell said he would call the First Selectman at the end of the week if he hadn’t gotten an update by then.
D. Berto said there needs to be discussion with B. Crosskey to create a timetable, i.e. the bid package probably should be completed by mid-May, and then WHA will have pricing that’s needed for funding applications.
R. Campbell asked if the project could be divided into two phases – one that uses town EDI funds (about $350,000) which has a procurement requirement; and one for standard funding, which follows State Department of Economic and Community Development rules.
D. Berto said 80 percent of the project is not EDI funded.
D. Berto said if the whole project is done together, it all needs to be low-bid.
R. Campbell noted that the (Federal Home Loan) funding may not be available until September or October 2012. So, WHA may not have the full funding puzzle until November or December. However, by dividing the work into two parts, some work could be completed by July (since the town funding is already available), and being able to show progress on the project could also enhance applications for other funding.
C. D’Agata asked how the project could be divided. R. Campbell said site clearing, infrastructure could be part of a first phase (EDI funds). D. Berto said water pipes could be installed. D. Berto said he favors splitting the project into two parts.
[B. Crosskey arrived at the meeting.]
W. Gangaway asked D. Berto for information about a tax formula used for a similar project in Tolland. D. Berto said it comes out to $12 per month per unit, or $144 annually per unit.
More discussion followed about dividing the project into two phases, and the bidding process for different aspects of the project.
R. Campbell asked B. Crosskey his opinion on splitting the project into two parts, and the “low bid” process. B. Crosskey said that the low-bid process doesn’t necessarily mean you get the best end product or, in the long run, the best price. R. Campbell agreed, saying that unforeseen issues plus change orders jack up the final cost.
B. Crosskey said you can still be fair by having a short list (pre-qualify) based on experience and then solicit bids, knowing you have someone who has the know-how to do the project and provide good quality.
B. Crosskey said his only concern would be the interface between two different contractors. R. Campbell said he didn’t foresee an overlap of the two – could begin one phase in April – and the funding for the second phase isn’t expected until September (2012).
C. D’Agata asked if the same contractor could bid on both parts of the project. D. Berto said it wouldn’t be likely; that there likely would be contractors interested in site work, and others interested in the role of general contractor.
W. Gangaway said he doesn’t want to see a situation where, for example, a road is put in by one contractor and then torn up by the second contractor in order to install a pipe. R. Campbell said that’s one of the reasons the drainage plan has to be done and correct, now.
B. Crosskey said a good strategy would be to have the first contractor finish that phase of the work and then bring in the second contractor to see the work that’s been done, versus hearing later, “I didn’t know what I was inheriting” – so that the second contractor doesn’t tear out anything done by the first one.
D. Berto said all of the EDI funds ($350,000) must be spent on the first part of the project because the WHA won’t be able to spend any of it on the second part (without following the town’s procurement rules). He also suggested including alternates/options (when soliciting bids) in order to bring the cost up or down, depending on whether bids come in too high, or too low.
B. Crosskey suggested that some work in the first phase, i.e. seeding, could be suspended until after the buildings are constructed. D. Berto said most likely all of the EDI funds would be spent on work that needs to be done on phase one.
D. Berto said he will confer with E. Peterson about how to divide the project/define the contract limit lines.
Discussion followed about the heating/cooling system for the project.
R. Campbell asked B. Crosskey if – because the WHA is undecided at this time about a choice of heating/cooling system – the options they are considering can all be shown on the maps.
B. Crosskey said yes, and indicated color coding will be added to maps to show: four locations for underground propane tanks (yellow) which can be sized later – one next to each building and the mechanical; the locations of geothermal wells (green dots) (also indicating how deep and how many pipes, loops in the system); and the location of condensing units/heat pumps (red blocks). R. Campbell said they want approval for all of these heating options, which will depend on future funding.
D. Berg noted that the project will not be using oil for heat.
R. Campbell said photovoltaic panels (solar panels) on the roof should also be shown, as an option.
B. Crosskey said the maximum number that can be installed on the south-facing roofs is 27, or 6.5 per unit, which might provide for all electrical power needs. R. Campbell said whether or not the project includes solar panels will depend on whether there is grant money to fund this option. B. Crosskey said the panels won’t generate enough power to sell “excess” back to the utility company.
D. Berto noted that this will be a “low use”/energy-efficient project (even without the panels) because it will be well insulated and have energy-efficient windows and (LED) lighting, so it’s possible the panels would cover a substantial amount of the units’ electricity.
B. Crosskey said that if the WHA does contract for solar panels, the company has to evaluate the site and create a design, so it’s necessary to wait until the WHA has funding specifically for this work.
Discussion followed on the choice of showers. B. Crosskey distributed illustrations of different accessible models and their prices. (It was agreed there wouldn’t be any tubs.)
The WHA chose the 3x5 style (Option E) shower that is flush with the floor (a roll-in shower) with a collapsible dam (to discourage flooding) for all units on both levels.
B. Crosskey also suggested installing ceramic tile for the bathroom floors on both levels because they are more durable.
There was discussion about wall insulation.
B. Crosskey presented different options for 2x6 walls, insulation and their R-ratings, with WHA members preferring fiberglass with half-inch foam (R-21) on the outside, depending on funding.
Referring to discussion at previous meetings, B. Crosskey also said he researched foam-on-plywood panels – they are testing them now in Pennsylvania, but they currently aren’t available in New England, so this not an option at this time.
There also was discussion about roof construction – trusses, venting, insulation (blown-in fiberglass in the attic). D. Berg said he prefers larger trusses, i.e. 40-42 lb live load, vs 32-lb, if this fits within the budget because of roofs that collapsed during snowstorms last year. B. Crosskey said the roofs that collapsed were substandard. He also suggested this (larger trusses) could be one of the bid alternates. D. Berto asked if before doing that, if B. Crosskey would check with his engineers to get an order of magnitude cost.
There was discussion of roof shingles.
B. Crosskey recommended two-ply, 30-year architectural asphalt shingles. He also recommended a “weathered wood” color, which is a gray-brown.
There was discussion about scheduling upcoming tasks.
B. Crosskey said about 10 percent of the work has been done on construction drawings – and noted that the WHA has to pin down its choice of HVAC system – and he is aiming for the beginning of May.
There was discussion of window (AC) units, but B. Crosskey said they often leak and cause water damage in the wall, and are unattractive.
There was discussion about the structures’ foundation. B. Crosskey said they will be 10-inch reinforced horizontally, and that he will have a wall section detail to show the WHA at a future meeting.
B. Crosskey presented estimates provided by Acorn Consulting of annual energy costs and comparisons of electric/heat pump and propane/fan coil systems. He noted hot water is included in gas costs for the propane-fan coil. R. Campbell noted that with the electric/heat pump, cooling costs are lower.
Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 8:02 p.m. The next regular WHA meeting is April 9, 2012.
Respectfully submitted,
Brenda Sullivan, WHA Recording Secretary
| 
