Building Committee Speaks

Fifteen months ago, on February 10, 2003, the referendum for the new Intermediate / Middle School was passed in Killingworth by an overwhelming 2-to-1 margin. The referendum was based on a specific site, as well as a needs assessment, program and set of design concepts put forth for the consideration of the voters. Since then, the Project has undergone design layout, budget refinement, and a myriad of state and local agency review and approval processes, with the last of those being the Killingworth Planning and Zoning Commission.

The site upon which the new school is to be built was selected based on a number of criteria considered important to the District Board of Ed ucation, the Building Committee , and input from the community. After almost two years of study and analysis, the site on Route 81 was selected. This particular parcel had the combined advantages of location, size and cost (including both acquisition and development) over the other sites that were considered. Is there a “perfect” site for a major school project in either Haddam or Killingworth? The answer is no. The goal, however, was set and achieved to find the most appropriate site. That site was then confirmed by the voters' approval at the Referendum .

With any public vote there will be people who agree and people who disagree with the outcome. In most instances, the “will of the people” prevails as the common theme and the issue proceeds once a deciding vote is cast. In the instance of the new school, however, the minority of dissenters in Killingworth have continued to attempt to discredit and derail the project for what can only be interpreted as personal motivation and gain . There have been rumors, disinformation and unsubstantiated statements spread throughout the community by this small but vocal faction . In response, the people of Haddam and Killingworth are asked to consider the following FACTS.

- There is no “boundary dispute” between the District and the adjacent property owner (the Webbers ). The site of the new school was completely surveyed and a legal land survey was produced by a licensed professional. Because of vague land records defining what the Webbers actually own, the land surveyor recommended that two small legs of property line, between the Webbers one acre parcel and the school site, have a formalized boundary agreement. The Webbers have consistently refused to discuss the issue with the District, but they also have made no claim whatsoever as to where they think the boundary is. The District has been left with no choice but to seek closure in court. The design of the site for the new school avoids those two small property lines sufficiently to accommodate whatever is finally decided in the Webber matter.

Why did the Building Committee withdraw its original application from the Planning and Zoning Commission?

- The matter of the project going before the Killingworth Planning and Zoning Commission has been the subject of much unfounded speculation. An application was submitted in January 2004 and withdrawn a month later . The proposed revised Zoning Regulations concerning public schools, which were not adopted after a public hearing on May 18 th , were intended to clarify the project type and not as an accommodation by the Planning and Zoning Commission to relax the regulations for specific benefit of the project. In fact, certain other proposed regulations, which actually restrict the use of the land further, were adopted. Nevertheless, the project has been resubmitted under these more restrictive regulations with full confidence that it is in compliance.

- The dissenters have alleged that the site contains 32 acres of usable land. That is not true . There are, in fact, in excess of 45 acres of buildable land which more than meets the planning and zoning requirement of 5 acres of buildable land per 100 students. Under this regulation, the school district can build a school to accommodate 900. The 32 acres refers to an item on the zoning application asking about amount of disturbed land. The Zoning Regulations contain very detailed criteria for calculating “minimum buildable lot size” which has nothing whatsoever to do with the “+/- 32 acres of disturbed area” that will be involved on the site.

- Prior to the referendum, the concept of the project indicated five fields. During design and review by the Inland Wetlands Commission, there was consideration of more fields (1) if the project budget could support it, and (2) if the Wetlands Commission would approve them. Now that Wetlands has approved the project site, the number of fields is the same as was conceptualized before the referendum - three soccer, one baseball, and one softball field .

- The Killingworth Zoning Regulations call for parking spaces to be 9 feet wide and 20 feet deep. The Wetlands Commission is interested in seeing impervious (paved) surfaces kept to a minimum. In order to satisfy both, the Building Committee went before the Zoning Board of Appeals and requested a 2 foot variance in the depth of a parking space - from a length of 20 feet to 18 feet (the width of 9 feet is as stipulated in the regulations and remains unchanged).

- Much has been said about the “septic” system for the new school. This significant infrastructure is an advanced wastewater and effluent treatment system, with significant filtering and monitoring characteristics, all of which has been closely reviewed, scrutinized and approved by the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection. This same system is in successful operation in other neighboring towns, and it is neither unproven nor is it the same as a residential septic arrangement. Given current environmental rules and regulations, this system or something similar would be necessary on any site that is not serviced by public sewers.

The schedule for the project, aside from the Killingworth Inland Wetlands and Zoning Commission, has remained on target since the referendum. In late 2002, it was estimated that the project design would be completed on an ambitious schedule that would allow for submission to the State of Connecticut School Facilities Unit in early November of 2003, nine months after the referendum. The submission took place on November 10, 2003. Had there not been delays with the Killingworth reviews, construction would have been underway sometime in March, 2004 .

- Discussion with the Killingworth Wetlands and Zoning Enforcement Officer began in early May of 2003.

- After two weekend site walks and approximately eighteen other meetings , the Inland Wetlands permit was granted in December of 2003, almost six months after application.

- Subsequent to Wetlands approval, application was made to Planning and Zoning in January of 2004. That application included demonstration of compliance with all of the regulations in effect at that time. The application was subsequently withdrawn in order to clarify the zoing regulations. Contrary to speculation, the project complied with the minimum buildable lot size requirements . The Planning and Zoning Commission then proposed new regulations which were intended to clarify public school use and applicable requirements.

- Despite the failure to adopt the proposed new zoning regulations, the project has been re-submitted under the existing regulations which, by certain newly adopted zoning regulations, are more restrictive than those that were in place last January . However, the project continues to comply with all of the zoning regulations now in place .

- Assuming a reasonable time line going forward with Planning and Zoning Commission review, public hearing and approval, the project should have local clearances to proceed sometime in July, which will provide for a start of construction in the fall.

- The timing of the local review processes has been slowed considerably by the dissenters and their sympathizers . For example, one member of the Wetlands Commission, who publicly expressed his, opposition to the project, insisted that the Wetlands Commission hire a separate engineering consultant to review the project - in addition to the expertise of the Town Engineer who usually is the one charged with reviewing the work of the duly licensed design professionals. Does it make sense that three separate sets of professionals be paid to do the same thing?

- The dissenters have spent, or have caused to be spent, much time and money to disrupt and obstruct both the local regulatory agencies and the project team in a clear effort to delay progress. This obstructionism has cost the taxpayers of the District not only in terms of dollars such as escalating building and material costs, but delay in getting a much needed school facility up and running for the good of the children in the school system.

- Since before the referendum, the District has indicated that it is not interested in having any single school facility that houses a student population greater than 1,000. This new school will house approximately 820 students when it first opens, and the demographic projections indicate that the census will gradually increase over subsequent years. The core facilities of the new school (common areas, food service, media, wastewater treatment, etc.) are all sized for a student population of 1,200. The academic space within the new school would be able to accommodate, through adjustment to class size, upwards of 1,100 students without any addition to the building. Long range plans include provisions for additional space to be added onto the structure to bring the school up to a size that may be necessary to accommodate a larger student population.

- As an overall statement as to the viability of the new school on the selected site, one must consider that a school project in this state must undergo a myriad of review and approval processes - both at the state and local level. The process will involve the review of the project by over 25 different agencies . Beyond that, the design team of architect and professional engineers has many years of experience with a significant number of public school facilities. This is a large, complicated and necessarily sophisticated building and site, mandated by legislation, rules and codes dictating building construction as well as delivery of education to students. It does not appear that the dissenters have the experience or knowledge to be credible in their criticism. It does appear, however, that the dissenters may be motivated by personal interest with little regard for the greater good of the community. Individual interests are not issues to be resolved with taxpayer money, and they must not be resolved at the expense of our children and their education. Have those opposing the site any experience or hired an experienced professional to support their claims?

- The new school and the taxpayers have the benefit of a State reimbursement rate that will likely never be seen on future school projects. For over a year, the new school has been in process and progress - money is being spent. It is long past the time for legitimate debate . This funding remains secure until June 30, 2005.

- The new school has been needed for several years. The voters have given the school district the mandate to build the new school on the site as chosen . In a perfect world, the construction would have been well underway towards completion and operation. However, with the negative and personally motivated activities of a small group who have no concern for the will of the voters, those same voters must once again let their commitment be heard.

- It is imperative that your voice be heard. Please attend the scheduled meeting of the Killingworth Planning and Zoning Commission on July 6, 2004 at 7:30 p.m. at Killingworth Elementary School , submit your letters of support to the editors of the local newspapers and contact your local elected officals regarding your thoughts.

Response : The site selection was a carefully designed and implemented process that was undertaken by the Building Committee over a period of time extending for over a year. In addition to the obvious points of consideration such as location, cost, transportation and safety, the Building Committee deemed the site appropriate due to its suitability for building a school facility as confirmed by numerous agencies, its proximity to a major traffic route and the convenience of its location in proximity to the other schools in the district.

Response : Using the extensive body of research relative to school size and how it relates to student achievement, the Board of Ed ucation and administration of the school district have deemed that a smaller school community is more advantageous to their goals for students. Considering the results obtained by many educational researchers, smaller schools produce better results for students both academically and emotionally. One can see the actual implementation of this “smaller is better” concept when one examines the educational specifications used at the onset of the project. When complete, the new Intermediate / Middle School will function as two separate schools within one main facility. This not only meets the educational needs of all students but also is the most economic use of the facility. In reality, the core facilities (gymnasium, cafeteria, etc.) and the major systems of the new building (wastewater, etc.) are designed to support a student population of up to approximately 1,200. While the Board of Ed ucation does not find this size school to be a direction in which they choose to go at this time, the building could support additional students when and if space is needed in the future.

Response : Yes. The site, with the building, as designed and submitted to Planning and Zoning, supports the project in a manner that complies with all applicable codes and regulations and will successfully support the new Intermediate / Middle School when it becomes occupied. The project has been reviewed by numerous design professionals, municipal officials and agencies for the purpose of receiving approvals for the various aspects associated with it. A partial list of those involved in the review and approval process is as follows:

Phase 1 Environmental Review of Site (Determine any probable locations of onsite hazardous materials. Consultant hired by Owner.)

Phase 2 Environmental Review of Site (Verify and determine extent of onsite hazardous materials. Consultant hired by the school district.)

Phase 3 Environmental Review of Site (Document remediation of onsite hazardous materials as part of Construction Documents. Consultant hired by the school district.)

Geotechnical Testing and Report (Test bearing capacity of site and recommend foundation type. Consultant hired by the school district.)

Wetlands Ecologist (map wetlands and review wetlands impacts. Consultant hired by the school district.)

Construction Manager - (Review design documentation to be in conformance with established budget, oversee bidding and construction of project. Ensure adherence to budget and design. All decisions reviewed with the school district. Construction Manager hired by the school district.)

State Department of Environmental Protection (Review site and septic design)

State Department of Health (Review water supply design)

Connecticut Water Company (Review water supply design and impacts of on-site water resources)

State Department of Public Works (Review l ife cycle cost analysis of proposed project)

State Traffic Commission (Review project generated traffic and drainage impacts on state roadway systems)

State Department of Education School Facilities Unit (Site approval and project design approval with particular emphasis on building, fire and handicapped code conformance)

Inland Wetlands and Water Courses Commission

Town of Killingworth Engineer

Separate Independent Wetlands Reviewers (Third engineering firm, hired by the Wetlands Commission)

Zoning Board of Appeals

Conservation Commission

Town Planning and Zoning

Threshold Review of project per Section 114.3-Connecticut Building Code (Independent Reviewer hired by the school district.)

Special Inspections (Structural Components) During construction, per Section 1705-Connecticut Building Code (BOCA).
Structural Engineer . (Inspector hired by the school district.)

Materials Testing Company - (Testing of materials for Special Inspections and for conformance with Design Specifications. Company hired by the school district.)

Independent Reviewer (separate architectural / engineering team hired by the school district to review project for Building and Fire Code conformance as part of building permit process.)

Town Building Inspector

Town Fire Marshal

Town Sanitarian

Town Fire Chief

5. If there is no definition of “public school” in the Planning and Zoning regulations, how can this project be approved?

Response : The Killingworth Planning and Zoning Commission accepted a definition of “public schools” at their last meeting that will allow the project to move forward once they accept the application as presented by the school district.

Kjell Tollefsen – Chair, Mark Almeida, Jo Ferjak,Rick Zygmont, Rick Berzon, Steve Bull, Scott Chasse, Brenda Lowther, Howard Howes, Gary S. Mala – Superintendent of Schools, Gary Shettle – Director of Finance & Operations, Mim Wagner – Principal, Haddam-Killingworth Middle School

REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 17

BUILDING COMMITTEE SPEAKS