Friday, November 12, 2010

11/12 BOE Planning Committee Highlights & Lowlights

The BOE Planning committee met this morning ( see agenda ). Notes from today's meeting:

High Lights:
  • District-Wide Window Replacement project came in under budget by $99K. The original appropriation was for $750K.
  • Dodd Kitchen Renovation project is nearly complete and on budget. I visited the Dodd Kitchen on Monday and there was touch up work going on namely painting. The new walk-in Freezer/Refrigerator is excellent and the loading dock appears complete. I will post pictures soon.
  • The BOE Planning Committee today voted to approve up to $10K to seek out and hire a design engineer for the CHS Boys Locker room. As such, Vincent Masciana will begin the search ASAP.
  • Energy Savings (this one's for you Tim).  Some work is underway at the CHS Auditorium. Part of the work entails replacing the auditorium's incandescent bulbs with LED bulbs. It's anticipated that the LED bulbs will save ~8,000KW/hr. The cost to purchase and install the LED bulbs was covered by an energy grant and ~$3K from the BOE budget. It's anticipated that these LED bulbs will generate up to $5K/yr in energy cost savings. The LED bulbs have a life expectancy of 50 years.
  • Dodd Kitchen Phases 2&3:  With the referendum item passing the project is moving forward with phases 2&3 and the PBC is starting the search for a design firm.
Low-Lights:
  • CHS Auditorium Windows Caulk/PBC Issue: There are a series of windows embedded in between steel/concrete and caulked with a material containing PBC. The caulk has separated and naturally water is making it's way past the caulk and into the auditorium. The caulk needs to be replaced but because it contains PBC the EPA recommends that we test the caulk and surrounding areas for seepage (concrete, walls, parking lot and adjacent grass field). The cost to perform the testing alone could be as high as $12K. It's worth noting that BOE Planning committee recently approved up to $5K towards the replacement costs of the caulk. Not sure why testing is so expensive. The planning advised Mr. Masciana to solicit more estimates before we commit to the testing.
  • CHS Track Resurfacing:  A discussion about the track occurred. Since the referendum to resurface the track failed the current appropriation of $150K is not enough to perform the project. The track drainage issue was discussed. My belief was that part of the $150K could be used to install the curtain drain for the track. However, it was pointed out to me that the curtain drain would also require digging under the track and/or making saw cuts into the track surface. I think this would basically destroy the existing track. The discussion shifted to the "South D" zone which is in terrible condition and perhaps we should focus on this part of the track for now. Then again....the drainage issue still persists. It was determined that the track is still usable for another year in it's current condition. Further discussion needs to occur on a plan of attack.
  • CHS Turf Field:  There was no update/communication from the TM/TC regarding the turf motions made by the BOE. It appears we're in a wait and see mode at this point.
Regarding the Turf/Track and the notion that the two projects could be combined and should be done at the same time. It's my opinion that either project could be done independently of one another. Should the turf field go in first, a bridge would need to be installed over a section of the existing track to allow trucks/equipment to pass through without damaging the track. The cost of a temporary/portable bridge is $10K. Whatever drainage work is required for the field could be done at this time.

However, when the track does get replaced, the turf along the inner perimeter of the track would need to be peeled back to allow trenching to occur for the track drainage. In essence, we'd be touching part of the turf field twice thus increasing the cost of both projects. Even if the turf field installation (hypothetically of course) happens and preliminary drainage (i.e. hookup points) is installed for the track...it would need to be retouched when the track is resurfaced...remember, the track drainage also requires digging under the track. The cost savings being touted entailed doing the drainage installation once.

It's unclear how we would proceed at this point with either project. Then again, I don't expect the turf project to be put on top of the town's priority list of projects anytime soon. The field is usable for another year and deemed safe by Dr. Florio. Personally, I would like the TC Planning Committee's input on the Turf proposal/plan as well as general input on how to best move forward with the track at this time.

I do believe that there's been too much focus on the politics surrounding the turf project. I've found that when I take the time explain the turf project, the costs and assumptions with voters I usually hear "I didn't know that." We forget that we've spent north of $200K on the current grass field over the last 10 years...and I expect we'll spend even more over the next 10 years to maintain what we have. I understand voter's concerns about adding additional infrastructure and the potential costs associated with them...but don't forget that our current grass infrastructure is costing us just the same.

I hope that if/when the turf project is discussed that the focus can shift to the actual dollars and plan presented by the BOE. In the meantime, we have bigger priorities and issues to contend with.

Tony Perugini

8 comments:

tim white said...

Tony... regarding the auditorium... thanks! Frank B has been working on it for a while & giving updates to the Energy Comm. The last question I recall was whether to save money and rent a smaller scaffolding rig that would be moved around the auditorium (and slow down events to some extent) or rent a large scaffolding and get all the lights replaced lickety-split. I think Frank was leaning toward the less expensive option.

About the $10k for a design engineer... how do BOE rules work on that? In other words, why was a vote required? The Council has a rule that prohibits the TM from spending more than $24k on one vendor in a given year. (Maybe it's $12k for a product, $24 for services??) Over the limit, the Council votes. Below it, there is no vote. And I know the BOEs threshold is higher than the Council for some stuff (GF has higher spending authority).

I know the BOE budget has a line item for "design / engineering / consulting / etc." So why would you vote? Or maybe that line item is already depleted? But I know GF can move funds around (among the line items within each of the six main accounts... though not among the six main accounts) without a BOE vote... so even that doesn't make sense to me. Was it a symbolic vote? I think symbolic votes matter... but still wondering about the vote.

Tim White said...

With regard to the turf, the idea is to expand services (per se). And it will certainly come at a cost (though funding could come from a variety of sources). I think Cheshire voted R last week (only incumbent Dems -- and not all of them -- won... all open seats, incl Guv, went GOP) because of a variety of reasons. But the common denominator is spending IMO. Spending now and spending in the future.

Over the past year, I wondered what would happen if the turf is installed, but then redoing it in eight years gets rejected.

Well, that's not exactly theoretical anymore.

About 20 yrs ago, we went from a cinder track to a rubberized track. And now we face the same question. What to do?

My feeling is the economy will need to improve before the voters support such stuff. And I'm far-from-convinced that the economy is about to improve... at least not with the Printing Press Prince, Ben Bernanke, running monetary policy.

It's not a pretty thought. I know. But just look at how other countries (countries that bought and hold US$) are saying. They're not happy at all with Bernanke. And if they so choose, they can begin to sell away their dollars -- over time -- and slowly devalue the dollar.

Everyone's salary has less purchasing power... and they want gov't to spend less.

With Ben's QE2 on the horizon, I don't see things improving much in the next couple years... perhaps people will get jobs... but the wages earned will be lower than before. And the more important thing is that, again, purchasing power falls... and so does one's standard of living.

I think the turf and the track both need to be put to the side for a few years. It's just a reality... America faces a declining standard of living for a while. And for that time... I doubt people will want to spend tax dollars on this stuff.

I just hope Obama (and / or the new Congress) steer us toward a sane monetary policy that's not on a crash course with a collapsing dollar.

Tony Perugini said...

Tim, I completely understand the mentality and voter sentiment towards spending in this economy and expanding services, long-term costs. But sadly, with regards to the Turf project, it appears the details get buried under a cloud of bias.

I've spend a great deal of time and detail in your BLOG on turf with the goal of getting the facts out from under the political/personal biases that exist among all turf stakeholders. I don't want to retype that detail again, LOL, at some point I'll copy/paste it in this blog for future reference.

But...in this particular case (and perhaps what bothers me the most about this project) is that we've spent over $200K on the grass fields in the past 10 years pretty much all on maintenance. We're going to spend at least another $200K more over the next 10 years to maintain what we have (i.e. do nothing).

The initial turf install is "free". I quote "free" because I consider the $525K grant/slush fund wasted taxpayer dollars. The replacement cost for a turf field is $350K. The revenue plan for the field will cover at least $150K of the replacement costs. Coupled with the $200K we're already spending, to me...it's a wash...but turf is the better value for that money.

Can we wait another 2-3 years? Sure we can. As I've stated many times before, there's no rush unless one is afraid that the grant is going to be yanked away. :-) However, with Malloy at the helm, I don't see slush funds going away anytime soon.

It bothers me that we'll throw another $50-65K more at the existing mudpit in that time. For 8 years, the town gets a running start on the turf field bought and paid for by a grant and donations. During that 8 years, the BOE will generate revenue from the field to be put towards the replacement costs. I suspect there will be some contributions by donors, but I'm not banking on it.

As for cost savings, as I stated many times before, there will be none whether it's a turf field or grass/sod. Both have their +/- in the cost department. If we want to save costs associated with the fields at CHS...cut down on the utilization of those fields. Cut part or all of the sports that use the fields. It would save on lighting costs, water, labor, fertilizer to name a few expenses.

If I thought the turf project didn't make sense economically, I wouldn't ask the TC to consider it. Whether it's considered now or in a couple of years, I hope that the plan the BOE put forth (per the TC's request) does get scrutinized. As I stated earlier, considering other higher priority items and issues on the town's table, I don't expect action on turf for some time.

In the meantime, we'll need to address a $500K shortfall in the current budget for Special Education. This will be discussed at the 11/18 BOE meeting. More to come on this topic on Monday.

Tim White said...

I agree that you have much more pressing issues. But I also hope that at some point you can front-page the historic actual expenditures (detailing the $20k/yr) and the anticipated future budget for turf.

Do you recall when we heard about the "high costs" of the summer-only pool budget? It was the budget that included a full-time 12 mos per yr staff person, as well as a full-time six months per year staff person. That was nonsense.

Budgets like that are not credible and they have the knock-on effect of causing credibility issues throughout government.

Scanning the budget in an easily readable format... not a explanation in text, but an excel s/s... would make the discussion much more productive in my opinion. Everyone would have the opportunity to parse hairs on the facts and question the assumptions... ultimately leading to the well-educated decision we all want.

For me though, budgets need to be an excel format... not a word doc. I can digest it that way. Explaining a budget in words doesn't work well... at least for me.

Tony Perugini said...

"Scanning the budget in an easily readable format... not a explanation in text, but an excel s/s... would make the discussion much more productive in my opinion"

Tim, for now, you're getting my textual explanation until I can post the supporting details. If it bothers you, don't read my textual explanations.

I'm working on a number of reports on various subject areas in the budget and will post detail as I get to it.

"Explaining a budget in words doesn't work well... at least for me."

I'll use smaller words.

Tony

tim white said...

haha... the beauty of blogging... it's impossible to make everyone happy... haha...

I completely understand. Thank you for what you've provided. I appreciate it... and know how time-consuming this is.

Tony Perugini said...

LOL. I'm scanning stuff now. There's just too much paper. I'm looking into having the administration make the reports (pretty much any report handed out to the BOE) available electronically to BOE members through the Power School software.

There will be more spreadsheets available this budget season and I will upload what I can ( so long as it's not confidential, personnel-related or anything that may violate BOE data privacy policies) to a file share here. Like yourself, I'd rather work in spreadsheets...maybe I'll be able to get Google Docs into the mix here. Thanks for being patient.

- Tony

Anonymous said...

Health issues are still a concern re:"turf Fields".. This has been pushed aside. Why?