|
|
|
|
Blunders, mismanagement plague fields project |
|
Thursday, 11 June 2009 |
BY ABBY FOX
The town council grilled school fields contractor Caito Corporation Monday night, asking how the key players behind the project didn’t learn sooner that drawing water from the well on school property wouldn’t be an acceptable option to the Department of Environmental Management, in order to irrigate the fields.
“Before going to DEM, did we have someone review water resource use for this project?,” town councilor Mark Schwager asked. “Who’s in charge of this project?,” Town Council President Michael Isaacs asked. (The answer was project manager Ernie Di Saia).
“It seems to me you could have gotten input” from the DEM that the Hunt River Aquifer would be limited and the well couldn’t be used much, councilor Richard Buonauito said. “It should have been resolved right from the get-go.”
John Caito and Jeff Hansen of Caito Corporation replied that school officials didn’t give them any indication that using the school well, which has gone unused for years, wouldn’t be a sufficient source, so they didn’t think anything different. They shot back that the DEM said told them the town hasn’t actively attended DEM open meetings on the Hunt River Aquifer’s limitations, especially during the intense summer season, so Caito wasn’t able to rely on the town’s knowledge.
Before, at meetings, the fields committee and officials said they were prepared to go forward building an irrigation basin, to the tune of more than $850,000, since the DEM was unenthusiastic the schools’ plans to draw from their well. Having your own well, you are completely self-sufficient, Caito had told the school committee, and you would avoid KCWA’s restrictions during the dry summer months, and avoid paying the annual costs, which could cost between $20,000 and $40,000, they estimated. Just lately the conversation has shifted, though, with Caito and Fields Committee Chair Mike Feeney agreeing with the town council that the matter is now a choice between an irrigation basin in the neighborhood and buying Kent County Water Authority Water.
“Why didn’t you call Kent County Water Authority Earlier?” Isaacs asked. “The fact remains that they weren’t contacted and that avenue wasn’t explored. We’ve wasted time, money and aggravation.” He and Michael Kiernan also asked why Caito hadn’t asked DEM for a combination water-usage plan involving both the school well and potentially an irrigation pond.
Caito replied that people didn’t understand how DEM operates, that, as Caito put it, “the process is, ‘Make an application, and we’ll evaluate it” – not a situation where you can ask a simple question and get an answer back. “We handed in an application once the construction documents were complete,” he said – in November, 2008.
The KCWA application would be done by the end of the week, Feeney said, and the expectation is to get an answer “in seven to ten days,” just in time for the next time the council meets with fields representatives, on June 22.
So who should have known what about the potential water supply problem, and when? Feeney remained steadfast after the meeting that “All I can tell you, is I relied on the experts to provide a game plan and it went forward and we had some bumps. There is plenty of second- guessing, but I have to look forward and be a problem solver. There’s a time for inquiry and there’s a time for decision-making and we’re in a situation where we need to make decisions,” while inquiry can come later. Feeney has said he’s done what he could, “striving to find alternatives,” thinking that by building more field turf fields, and fewer grass fields, irrigation money could be saved that way. But he hasn’t had much traction.
Town council members clearly weren’t “over” what has happened, though, and expressed disappointment that water questions weren’t brought up sooner and answered sooner. And they said they still want to keep the McHale fields in the project – those so-called “extra” one and a half fields that Feeney and others on the fields committee have said may have to be eliminated, if the town has to pay for the unanticipated expense of an irrigation pond.
Monday’s meeting came as a result of the town council two weeks ago demanding that Caito show up and explain why they didn’t realize earlier DEM wouldn’t approve drawing from the well because of the strain on the Aquifer, especially during the summer. “These are professional engineers,” Buonauito said then. “It would seem to me they should have had the engineering knowledge to ferret that out right away.”
Where this came from
When did the fields committee get wise to the reality that it couldn’t rely on a well for irrigation and would have to pay for a retention pond instead?
The Department of Environmental Management gave the fields committee a heads up that there could be a water supply issue back in February, at a meeting with officials, according to Russ Chateauneuf of the DEM.
“We went through the concerns in that watershed area and the problem with low flow, in the summer time,” he said. “We conveyed that water available from the ground would be limited. The Fry Brook is a tributary to the Hunt River Aquifer and has some low-flow problems itself. We discussed ideas and options for trying to deal with that problem.”
DEM “received the application Nov. 24,” Chateauneuf said. “The town did think they would activate the well and use that, but there wasn’t very much information about that [in the application]. We said it constituted a significant alteration of wetlands – quite frankly we didn’t know much about the well or irrigation. We gave them that determination, Jan. 16, and two weeks after that, early February, we got down to discussing the water use issue. There was some discussion about building a storm water pond for irrigation, and they submitted a new application April 17 [to use the well in the off-season] and that’s under review.”
Pond placement
If there is an irrigation pond built, where would it go? A public hearing should take place to let the residents hear the alternatives, officials were saying a couple of weeks ago, but now they’ve backtracked, saying they want an answer from Kent County Water Authority first, to see if they can take from them.
The options are, first, to put the retention pond in the River Farm neighborhood, which may displease the residents there, or, by Meadowbrook Farms School, which could present a potential safety hazard, or the third option, which may save money, would be by going into a junior varsity baseball field. The first option in River Farm could cost $850,000, while the second could cost even more, because it would involve relocating a sewer line under an emergency access road, while the third choice of taking a field away would save money, but officials don’t like the thought of losing a field.
“Which devil are you picking?” was how Feeney put it at a recent fields meeting.
A couple weeks ago, it was also announced that a town employee would be brought in to help keep track of the project, especially because the project will be losing some oversight in the next few weeks, with the retirement of outgoing School Superintendent Charlie Meyers, and the man picked was Public Works Director Joe Duarte. School Committee Chair Jean Ann Guliano called him the “point person for the project,” and Town Manager Bill Sequino said by bringing Duarte on board, the fields committee would be getting the benefit of several town officials in one, because Duarte would absorb all their opinions.
On a positive note, the football team will be playing on the brand-new Carcieri field this fall, and the concession stand should be ready by then, too, Feeney said.
Landfill
Public Works Director Joe Duarte said recently the covered landfill project is “almost 100 percent complete” and that he would like to be happy to invite the public to walk it – when the landfill is ready for it.
“We’re fearful that without the appropriate vegetation it would ruin quite a bit of surface,” he said.
Whether people will walk on a bike path on Crompton Road or not, Duarte said that right now it’s dirt and the town may bet the grant funding together to be able to pave it.
Senior center bids in
Fourteen contractors submitted bids for the senior and community center (to be created out of a renovated Swift Gym) and the town is focusing on the three lowest bidders, said Senior Services Director Erin McAndrew.
The lowest bid was $1,618,000, she said, by Iron Construction Group, LLC. The highest was $2,162,974.
“The range we were hoping for was around $1.7 million and six were in that range,” she said. McAndrew will present the bids soon at a town council meeting.
Rail station issue alive
For those eager to see if East Greenwich could see a commuter rail some day, the word is that a rail station issue is far from dead, and the Department of Transportation is looking into it.
Last week, Steve Devine of the DOT met with interested residents at the police station meeting room to talk about its possibilities. The Pendulum didn’t attend the meeting.
Warwick and Wickford are getting rail and East Greenwich may as well.
“It’s in the very formative stages,” Town Manager Bill Sequino said last week. “The state has hired a consultant to look at potential locations. The consultant’s report will look at Cranston, East Greenwich, and South Kingstown and Westerly. All we are is just an idea at this point.”
But, the town manager said, “If people are really interested in a rail station, there needs to be an advocacy committee. One has been formed in South Kingstown already. If the state knows you want a facility, it’s much better than going into the unknown.”
The town already figured out years ago where the location would be – a stretch of land from Rocky Hollow Road down to the American Legion. It wouldn’t require tearing down any buildings and there are three property owners. “There’s no other spot,” he said.
“At the completion of the study we should know where we stand,” he said.
Police Chief to stay one more year, at least
Police Chief David Desjarlais has agreed to one-year extension of his contract, the council announced Monday, and the council thanked him for staying on.
Typically contracts are signed for three-year terms but the Chief decided to stay with one-year for now, he said after the meeting. He’s going into his 23rd year, and while he doesn’t mind the late-night phone calls, his wife does, and his kids are almost done with college.
He said that the contract won’t affect the budget, because his salary is staying the same.
|
|
|
|
