Ledyard Panel To Revisit Future Of Building Committee, Finalize Capital Project Process

LEDYARD, CT — A town committee developing new procedures for municipal building projects is scheduled Thursday to revisit the future of Ledyard's Permanent Municipal Building Committee and work toward final recommendations for the Town Council.

The Ad Hoc Committee to Develop a Process for Capital Improvement Building Projects will meet at 4:30 p.m. Nov. 12 at the Town Hall Annex. Its agenda calls for another review of a draft capital-project procedure, the ordinance governing the Permanent Municipal Building Committee, a municipal improvement checklist and other documents before possible action on a final report to the council.

Subscribe

The meeting follows an Oct. 8 debate in which committee members split 3-3 on a proposal to recommend disbanding the Permanent Municipal Building Committee after it completes its currently assigned projects. Public Works Director Steve Masalin made the motion, with Board of Education Director of Facilities and Grounds Wayne Donaldson and Finance Director Matthew Bonin also voting in favor. Board of Education representative Brandon Graber, Town Councilor and committee Chairman Ty Lamb and community representative Gary Schneider opposed it. The motion failed on the tie.

Bonin had recommended allowing the existing committee to finish its current projects and then replacing it with project-specific committees formed as needed. Masalin and Donaldson agreed with that approach. Donaldson said there were no imminent projects in the next several years that would require the permanent committee.

Schneider raised concerns that eliminating the standing committee could make it harder to recruit volunteers and could result in the loss of institutional knowledge. Graber favored retaining a building committee through a possible hybrid structure that would preserve an established core of experienced volunteers while allowing project-specific participation. He also noted that eliminating a standing committee would remove a layer of oversight.

Lamb said at the October meeting that disbanding the Permanent Municipal Building Committee would require a Town Charter change, although the committee could recommend such a change when the charter is next revised. Masalin said the group could instead recommend revisions to the ordinance, including changes to financial thresholds and committee membership.

The ad hoc committee itself was created by the Town Council in February after the Permanent Municipal Building Committee and Board of Education requested a group of stakeholders to examine Ledyard's building-project process. Its charge includes reviewing the existing building-project workflow, the 1990 Municipal Improvement Checklist and the ordinance establishing the permanent committee, while evaluating options to improve how town and school capital projects are managed.

The council also directed the committee to develop an end-to-end process and timeline covering preliminary design and cost estimates, professional-service procurement, project financing, grant applications, construction oversight, invoice approval, project closeout and resolution of construction problems.

A revised procedure dated Sept. 30 lays out a framework beginning with the annual Capital Improvement Plan. Departments, including the Board of Education, would submit project requests and cost estimates for inclusion in the townwide plan. The mayor would then recommend projects, financing methods and who should manage each project — a department head, the Permanent Municipal Building Committee or a specially appointed building committee.

The draft establishes different procedures depending on whether projects are financed through taxes, grants or borrowing. For bonded projects, the Town Council would determine whether oversight belongs with a department, a special building committee or the permanent committee. Projects estimated at more than $500,000 generally would require an owner's representative or consulting engineer selected through a qualifications-based process.

The proposal also assigns responsibility for regular project updates, change orders, grant coordination, invoice approvals and project closeout. If a change order does not alter a project's scope or require additional money, the draft would allow the supervising department or committee to proceed without separate Town Council action. Changes requiring additional money or a change in scope would require council notification.

At the October meeting, members identified several provisions that still needed clarification. Donaldson said school grant applications would have to be submitted by the superintendent. He also recommended requiring owner's representatives to provide project and budget updates through provisions written into bid and request-for-proposal documents. Bonin said some owner's representatives do not consistently provide such updates.

Members also questioned whether the draft made clear enough when projects are formally assigned and who assumes oversight. Donaldson noted that much of the process can occur before a project is formally assigned, while Lamb said language might need to be strengthened to clarify the assignment process.

The current ordinance gives the Permanent Municipal Building Committee responsibility for selected construction and maintenance projects assigned by the Town Council, including design, construction, renovation and demolition of town and school buildings. It requires projects estimated above $500,000 to use an owner's representative or consulting engineer, subject to specified selection procedures.

The ordinance currently provides for five regular members, generally selected for experience in finance, engineering, architecture, project management or the building trades, along with temporary project representatives and several nonvoting town officials.

The committee will also review an older Municipal Improvement Checklist intended to guide building committees through site planning, code compliance, stormwater management, traffic impacts, parking, wetlands, historic resources, energy efficiency and fiscal impacts, among other considerations.

Another document, "Building Blocks to Completion of a Project," describes a broader sequence beginning with identifying a need and estimating costs, followed by creation of a building committee, public hearings, Planning Commission review, Town Council action, financing and eventual construction. It also notes that larger appropriations may require approval at a town meeting or referendum.

Lamb said in October that the committee needed to complete its work and prepare a report for the Town Council. He planned to draft a letter accompanying the revised procedure checklist, with Masalin helping finalize revisions before the committee's final review.

Thursday's agenda gives the committee authority to discuss and possibly act on that report and its recommendations, making the unresolved question over the Permanent Municipal Building Committee one of the key issues remaining before the group completes its assignment.