|
ENFIELD TOWN COUNCIL
MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING
JUNE 14, 2004
A Special Meeting of the Enfield Town Council was called to order by Chairman Tallarita in the Council Chambers of the Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut on Monday, June 14, 2004 at 7:04 p.m.
ROLL-CALL - Present were Councilmen Dodd, Edgar, Egan, Fiore, Kaupin, Mangini, Peruta, Reveruzzi, Tallarita, and Tait. Councilman Crowley was absent. Also present were Town Manager, Scott Shanley; Assistant Town Manager, Daniel Vindigni; Town Clerk, Suzanne Olechnicki; Deputy Director of Public Works, Geoffrey McAlmond; Director of Finance, Gregory Simmons.
Present from the Enfield Board of Education were Donna Corbin Sobinski, Albert Harrison, Kenneth Hilinski, Sharon Racine, Carol Santoski, Lynn Scull. Kristen Provencher Hamilton, Roger Jones, and Nicholas Sinsigalli were absent. Also present were Superintendent of Schools, Dr. John Gallacher; Assistant Superintendent of Schools, Anthony Torre, Director of School Facilities, Arthur Pongratz; Director of School Athletics, Trish Witkin
DISCUSSION RE: ATHLETIC FACILITIES
Present for this discussion was consultant, Vincent McDermott.
Mr. Shanley explained this was an item in the recreation referendum which appeared before the voters in 2001. He noted a lot of the feedback from the Council to staff was that they heard people wanted to do the athletic fields, but not right then, and they wanted to see if they could get the price down. He stated they asked Mr. McDermott's firm to work with Town and School staff to see if they could refine the plan to get the cost down and learn where they might realize some savings.
Mr. McDermott stated the original charge was to analyze the fields at the two high schools. He noted they looked at the quality of the fields from a safety and drainage point of view and identified a series of improvements they felt were justified in order to accommodate the greatest number of programs.
He displayed an illustration of Enfield High School fields. He pointed out that at the present time Enfield High School has a football field near the Connecticut River, and this field is surrounded by a cinder track. He noted there is also a series of playing fields at the bottom of the slope. He stated the football field is in pretty good condition, but the track is outdated and doesn't meet current standards for competition.
Mr. McDermott stated the other fields at Enfield High School are poorly drained. He noted in the past there was a question as to whether or not the under drain was installed in the 1960's. He stated they knew the north/south drain was not functioning and they were skeptical as to whether the under drain was installed. He noted the Public Works Department analyzed the north/south pipe and found it was crushed and there was a blockage. The blockage was removed. He added they tried to find some laterals, but they couldn't identify whether they were clogged. He stated the best guess is that maybe half were installed and the nature of the materials are not up to today's standards. He added the north/south and east/west large diameter pipes work well.
Mr. McDermott stated these fields are graded very flat, therefore, the utilization of these fields is limited to fair weather.
He stated the proposal illustrated this evening is to first bring the track into today's standard with a 440-yard synthetic surface. This track would be designed to accommodate six lanes with an eight-lane stretch, maintaining the orientation of the straight section in the relationship to the bleachers, having a zone for the high-jump event and the pole vault and long jump in the other zones.
Mr. McDermott stated they are able to accommodate a "fat track", and this means instead of having equal quadrants, they can reconfigure the track which allows for a larger multi-purpose field in the center to accommodate football, but they'd also be able to have 70-yard wide soccer.
He stated they discussed with the School Department the need to have new bleachers since the current bleachers don't meet ADA codes. He added there are other deficiencies with the bleachers. He noted they're proposing 1,000 home seats and 500 visitor seats.
Mr. McDermott stated they also show the opportunity to have a practice football field. He went on to note they've re-oriented the baseball fields for better play and as a result they're able to have some multi-purpose fields crossing the outfield.
He explained the difference at Enfield High School is a change in the drainage program. He noted in an effort to reduce the expense that they projected last time, and based on what the Town found in its excavation this winter, the feeling is that they could have good quality fields. He explained they would remove the upper layer, install a flat drainage system on tighter centers and tie that drainage system into the larger diameter pipes that surround the field. He noted by doing this they can improve the performance of the field.
He stated under the last presentation a very major item was the installation of a gravel blanket at a cost of about $400,000 for the gravel. He noted this latest concept involves stripping, pushing the loam material aside, regrading to facilitate water flow that comes through the upper soil mantle into the drainage system and then gets carried off. He noted the fields would be appropriately shaped.
Mr. McDermott stated Enfield High School's fields haven't seen any real improvement since they were built. He noted they're certainly over-compacted and not in good shape.
He stated another item omitted from the prior proposal involved a basketball court and possibly a skateboard facility.
He stated another item included in this proposal is event lighting for the multi-purpose field near the track area.
Mr. McDermott then highlighted the Fermi High School fields. He noted Fermi has more land but is less efficient because of the topographical differences such as its terraced site. He pointed out the main baseball field is elevated, with the softball field and existing track at different elevations.
He went on to explain the condition at Fermi is better because the soil seems to drain, aside from some pocketing and depressions that can be addressed with some routine maintenance, therefore, they didn't see the need to do a whole drainage system as at Enfield High School.
Mr. McDermott stated although the cinder track at Fermi is in better shape than Enfield High's, it still doesn't meet the 400 meter standard. He noted the bleachers are in the same condition as Enfield High's. He stated there is a serviceable press box/concession facility.
He explained the proposal at Fermi High is focused primarily on the track with some re-grading of the outfield area to facilitate better field hockey, some drainage improvements, and the need for bleachers. He went on to note the desire would be to create a fat track at this school as well so they could have the dual purpose inside the track. He stated if they went with the fat track, they expect the visitors' bleachers would have to be incorporated into the full bleachers because they'd be getting too close to the watercourse and the slopes on the easterly side of the property.
Mr. McDermott stated this proposal would have event lighting to promote evening and late afternoon play.
He noted the original proposal was to take away part of the parking lot system at Fermi to create a new field hockey field and take the mound in the center at the entrance to the school and covert it into a parking area. He stated these ideas were deleted as a result of discussions with school staff in order to create more realistic budget proposals.
Mr. McDermott stated the total construction cost at Fermi High School is about $1,541,000 which includes survey design and project administration. He stated the total construction cost at Enfield High School is about $2,364,000 which includes survey design and project administration.
Mr. McDermott stated another issue that was raised in discussions relates to synthetic athletic turf for the multi-purpose field inside the tracks. He noted many schools in Connecticut are discussing this option and this is generated in part because of the cost of maintenance of athletic fields. He stated the question is "Is the capital cost of a synthetic surface beneficial to a school system in terms of allowing greater intensity of use?" He went on to note there are studies that indicate that fields should only be used about 16 hours a week before turf begins to be destroyed. He stated good athletic fields should be renovated significantly on average about ten to twelve years.
He stated the town of Guilford spends at least $25,000 on their quality fields and only allows about ten hours of use on a weekly basis. He noted the analysis shows that the capital cost of a new synthetic multi-purpose field at Enfield High with lighting would be worth about three fields in terms of additional usage. He stated the maintenance of a synthetic field would be about $5,000 per year vs. $20,000 for a non-synthetic field. He went on to note the capital cost for a synthetic field is extremely high - about $700,000, however, about $100,000 would be saved because they would take out irrigation, some drainage improvements and the lights.
Councilman Reveruzzi questioned if there's any history regarding injuries on synthetic fields vs. natural fields. Mr. McDermott stated the new system is a polypropylene fabric into which rubber or a rubber silica mix is included. He went on to note he has not been able to find any injury statistics on this new product.
Councilman Reveruzzi questioned whether there are natural turf products that have been designed to be used on fields where football and soccer are being played simultaneously. Mr. McDermott stated that would be called a prescription athletic turf. He noted a field in Florida has a prescription athletic turf system and they can play on it extensively, however, it is highly maintenance intensive and irrigation requirements are enormous.
Ms. Santoski questioned if when the blockage in the drainage at Enfield High School was corrected, was water allowed to pass through. Mr. McDermott responded yes, to some extent. He explained there are two parts to that drainage system - one part is a main line, with two main lines at Enfield High and there were some laterals in the under-drain system that were connected and could be identified, however, they were not observed to have flow coming from them into the main line. He stated they can only presume that the system has failed. He explained the detail that's shown on the design plan which was found was that the drains were not wrapped and were not placed in gravel and they were made of a material that is likely to have deteriorated.
Ms. Santoski questioned what could be the most economic way to handle the drainage at Enfield High School assuming there is drainage failure. Mr. McDermott responded basically by replacing the entire drainage system. He explained they suggest scraping off the topsoil, re-screening it, and re-shaping it so that the sub-grade is undulating slightly to allow water to flow to the drain as it comes through the soil mantle.
Councilman Tait questioned the possibility of doing this work incrementally. Mr. McDermott responded yes, if it is timed right, but they would pay a premium on mobilization. He pointed out the bleachers should be taken care of as soon as possible.
Ms. Scull questioned the status of throwing circles, and Mr. McDermott noted throwing circles are portable.
Ms. Scull questioned whether there is enough room at Fermi to place a line of bleachers on the home side that is big enough to hold 1,500 people if they go with the unequal quadrant track. Mr. McDermott responded yes.
Councilman Fiore referred to the softball field at Fermi and stated his understanding they would dig out that infield and lay down new clay, etc. Mr. McDermott responded that's correct.
Councilman Fiore questioned whether the little field in the northeast corner has been discontinued at Fermi, and Mr. Pongratz stated it's still being used, however, not concurrently. Councilman Fiore stated his understanding the previous proposal that they went to referendum with was that this field would no longer exist.
Councilman Fiore questioned if they went with a synthetic field for Enfield High's all-purpose field area, would they still need an irrigation booster pump for the central area, and Mr. McDermott stated based on the flow data they had from 2002, the system was less than 75-80 psi which would require some sort of pump. He noted because of the need for abundant water, they generally put in a tank that would cover one cycle and include the pressure booster. He explained it isn't a quantity issue, but rather a pressure issue.
Councilman Fiore referred to Fermi irrigation and noted there's a concern about whether the supplier can supply the needed pressure and amount of water. Mr. McDermott explained the problem concerning Hazardville Water is that they have a peak demand issue today. He noted filling storage tanks off peak should not adversely effect the peak demand question that Hazardville Water is facing.
Mr. McDermott stated they looked at other alternative water issues a couple years ago and they did do an extensive analysis. He noted Connecticut Water is more expensive than Hazardville Water. He encouraged the further exploration of getting to the Connecticut River and siphoning some of that water. Councilman Fiore raised the possibility of dropping a well. Mr. McDermott responded that's a possibility. He noted in any event they would need a diversion permit. He pointed out getting a surface water diversion permit off the Connecticut River from DEP will be a lot easier than getting a well system.
Councilman Fiore stated he's very interested in removing the visitors' bleachers from the eastern side at Fermi to expand the use of the all-purpose field. He added his belief the fat track is the way to go.
Councilman Fiore stated when they last went out to referendum they budgeted about $150,000 for field lighting for both schools and now the proposal is $250,000. Mr. McDermott stated last year they experienced a significant increase in the cost of field lighting and bleacher systems. He noted as soon as they heard this they alerted several clients to make them aware of this.
Councilman Fiore stated he likes the new proposal, however, he believes they are still in a dilemma at Fermi High School. He believes they can't do a synthetic field at one high school and not the other. He referred to the new Fermi plan and the attempt to cut costs and stated that although the same playing fields will be improved, this will not add nor suffice for the capacity that's needed at that site without the same problem they're experiencing today - irrigated or not. He feels either they have to go with a synthetic track at Fermi and Enfield High, or they have to go back to the original plan for Fermi which was to create a field hockey field where the parking is and move the parking to the front of the building, or they won't satisfy the needs of that particular school.
Councilman Kaupin questioned the savings at Fermi for pulling out the field hockey field and the relocation of the parking. Councilman Fiore noted that figure is $365,000.
Councilman Kaupin stated at Enfield High School the two soccer fields are 210 X 350, but Fermi is 210 by 360. He questioned if that's just based on layout. Mr. McDermott stated the preferred minimum is 65 X 110. He noted schools like to play 70 X 120 or 75 X 120.
Councilman Kaupin questioned if the cost of water is included in the maintenance figure. Mr. McDermott estimated $16,000 to $25,000 per year for Enfield High's entire site and $15,000 to $25,000 for Fermi High's site. He explained the difference is whether they put on an inch or an inch and a half of water over a five-month irrigation period and whether they irrigate for four or five months. He stated at Enfield High's site they might get away with four months because it's wetter.
Councilman Kaupin questioned whether there's any issues with inclement weather as concerns the athletic field. Mr. McDermott stated athletic fields are capable of being used during inclement weather.
Councilman Kaupin raised the difference between the plexi track vs. the EPDM track and stated his recollection the life expectancy of the EPDM was that they'd have to re-do the track every ten years, and Mr. McDermott explained they rejuvenate the track with a spray coat every seven years. He noted the current cost is around $35,000 to $40,000.
He pointed out Suffield Academy is currently installing a plexi-track.
Councilman Mangini stated the Camp, Dresser, McKee study indicated in 2000 that improvements to the athletic fields at both schools could be resolved by constructing a game day facility at one site. She questioned whether that has been further explored, and Mr. McDermott responded his firm was not involved in that investigation.
Councilman Peruta questioned the number of useable acres, and Mr. McDermott responded 14 to 15 acres at Enfield High School.
Councilman Reveruzzi stated his belief a maintenance budget is an important part of this proposal. Mr. McDermott agreed.
Councilman Fiore suggested the possibility of looking for corporate sponsorship, i.e., selling the advertising and naming rights for the fields in order to receive the cash capital to do some of these projects. He noted they could go out to bid and solicit the two highest sponsors.
Mr. Hilinski questioned the cost to run field lights for a season. Mr. McDermott stated they could get that number. Mr. McAlmond added a lot has to do with the number of hours.
Chairman Tallarita questioned the life expectancy of the proposed drainage system for Enfield High School. Mr. McDermott responded certainly over ten years.
Mr. Pongratz stated it's important to have a maintenance budget.
Chairman Tallarita questioned if Town employees possess the skills to maintain the new fields. Mr. McDermott stated there are certain things that do require specialized individuals and most people contract this out, i.e., the application of fertilizers and the limited quantities of pesticides and herbicides that might be needed. He added specialized equipment is needed for limited use, i.e., aeration equipment.
Chairman Tallarita raised the question of who has control over those fields. He noted a consistent maintenance program has to be established.
Mr. Shanley stated it's probably wise for the Town Council and Board of Education to think about a community policy, not just on maintenance, but on capital investment, i.e., understanding that every ten years there would be a need for a major capital item, i.e., a half million dollars for renovations instead of the figure they're facing today.
Councilman Tait raised the possibility of doing the work incrementally, i.e., re-doing the football fields and tracks at both schools - $900,000 each. He noted they already have possibly $1.2 million dollars in hand. He stated this will give taxpayers a little more time to digest some of this.
Councilman Mangini stated she likes the idea of partnering with businesses in the community.
Ms. Santoski stated her belief they have to address who is responsible for each piece of this. Chairman Tallarita stated in the future there may be some combined services or efficiencies that can be realized.
Mr. Duffy, Principal at Enfield High School, pointed out there's a tremendous amount of use of their facility by the public. He raised the question of how that might be managed.
Ms. Racine voiced her concern about bleachers and safety issues. She went on to state her preference not to use fast food or drink sponsors for the fields.
Mr. Hilinski stated his belief they're talking about a major change in philosophy, especially in the maintenance area. He noted maintenance of new fields could result in an increase of at least $150,000 in the school budget. He questioned where will they get this money. He noted they would really have to plan for such an expenditure.
Councilman Egan agreed with Councilman Tait in that this should be done incrementally to make it more palatable for taxpayers. As concerns sponsorships, she noted Enfield has some of it's own big corporations, i.e., Lego, Hallmark, Bernies, etc., and those would be the good business to approach initially.
Councilman Kaupin stated his belief the maintenance of the fields should all fall under the Town side because they should have one standard method to do field maintenance, whether it's at a school or a park.
Chairman Tallarita pointed out Enfield has done a lot of work on its infrastructure and now it's time to take care of the athletic fields. As concerns doing this work piecemeal, he pointed out it's not only the track and football field that's in disrepair, but the rest of the fields need attention as well. He noted those people who want these improvements have to go out into the community and promote this proposal, and he feels it's the Council's obligation to put this out to a referendum. He questioned when the Council would have to move to get this out to a referendum in November. Mr. Shanley responded by August, and they'd have to have an actual question approved by the Town Council and explanatory text by the first week in September.
Chairman Tallarita stated before they move forward, they need to know the maintenance costs. Councilman Tait stated they also have to determine who will do the maintenance.
Councilman Peruta agreed they have to know the maintenance costs. He noted he liked the idea of doing the project piecemeal. He voiced concern how the public might react to an entire package at this time. He stated if an analysis was made in the past regarding a centralized athletic facility, he would like to see that analysis.
Mr. Hilinski stated his belief this proposal should be done as a package.
Councilman Fiore agreed they need to resolve the maintenance issue and he proposed a corporate advertising sell of these fields. He stated he's looking to go out to bid to accumulate large dollars for a ten-year naming of a field. He stated his belief they should review all their finances and come up with a plan that's going to have the least impact on the residents of the community.
Mr. Shanley summarized what is required:
" Harder maintenance costs
" Break out in more detail the cost of doing this piecemeal for future discussion
" Corporate sponsorship options
" Provide past analysis of game day facility
MOTION #7250 by Councilman Mangini, seconded by Councilman Kaupin to go into Executive Session to discuss Personnel Matters, Pending Litigation, Collective Bargaining and Real Estate Negotiations.
Upon a SHOW-OF-HANDS vote being taken, the Chair declared MOTION #7250 adopted 10-0-0, and the meeting stood recessed at 9:22 p.m.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
The Executive Session of the Enfield Town Council was called to order by Chairman Tallarita at 9:28 p.m.
ROLL-CALL - Present were Councilmen Dodd, Edgar, Egan, Fiore, Kaupin, Mangini, Peruta, Reveruzzi, Tait and Tallarita. Also present were Town Manager, Scott Shanley; Assistant Town Manager, Daniel Vindigni; Director of Economic Development, Raymond Warren; Town Clerk, Suzanne Olechnicki.
Personnel Matters, Pending Litigation, Collective Bargaining and Real Estate Negotiations were discussed with no action or votes being taken.
Chairman Tallarita adjourned the Executive Session at 9:46 p.m. He reconvened the Special Meeting at 9:47 p.m. and stated during Executive Session they discussed Personnel Matters, Pending Litigation, Collective Bargaining and Real Estate Negotiations with no action or votes being taken.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION #7251 by Councilman Tait, seconded by Councilman Fiore to adjourn.
Upon a SHOW-OF-HANDS vote being taken, the Chair declared MOTION #7251 adopted 10-0-0, and the meeting stood adjourned at 9:48 p.m.
|
|