Board of Selectmen Regular Meeting

FIFTEEN ROPE FERRY ROAD
WATERFORD, CT 06385-2886
PHONE: 860-442-0553
www.waterfordct.org
RECEIVED FOR RECORD
WATERFORD, CT
WH SEP -b P i250
a OF
. AGENDA
BOARD OF SELECTMEN REGULAR MEETING ©
Tuesday, September 10, 2024
5:00 PM
Waterford Town Hall (Appleby Room)
(Procedural Action: Check register to be signed by the Board of Selectmen in
accordance with CGS 7-83)
1. Call to Order & Roll Call:
2. Pledge of Allegiance
3. Public Comment:
4. Board of Education: To consider and act on a request for a FY25
appropriation from the Director of Finance and Operations, Joseph Mancini,
in the amount of $278,750, for the moisture and drainage remediation of the
Great Neck Elementary School Field, and forward on to the Board of Finance
if approved.
5. Board of Education: To consider and act on a recommendation from Shea
Davy, Purchasing Agent, to award Whaling City Ford, in the amount of
$68,747, from line # 24207-54070 for a 2024 Ford Truck F-350 Super Duty
4WD.
6. Planning Department: MOVED, that the Town of Waterford Board of
Selectmen authorize the First Selectman to sign the proposed contract with the
State of Connecticut to make improvements on State owned land at 365 and
371 Mago Point Way as described in the exhibit and more particularly
described in appendix A of said contract.
7. Planning Department: To consider and act on a request for a FY25 additional
appropriation from the Director of Planning, John Mullen, in the amount of
$12,500, for the joint grant application for the Conservation Project to preserve
and enhance Alewife Cove, from line# 20541-57328 (Alewife Cove

10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Dredging), and forward on to the Board of Finance if approved.
Police Department: To consider and act on a recommendation from Shea
Davy, Purchasing Agent, on behalf of the Police Department, for disposal of
aged assets, a 2016 Ford Explorer Police interceptor Utility, VIN #
1FMSK8AR9GGB89112, Asset ID: 101403, Tag: Car 7, as this vehicle has
been replaced according to the Fleet Management Plan.
Appointments & Resignations:
9a. To consider and act on the re-appointment of Julie Greco (IT) to the
Economic Development Commission, to fill the term of 9/1/24-8/31/28 as
an Alternate member,
9b. To consider and act on the re-appointment of Cathy Barnard (D) to the
Eastern Tourism Board, to fill the term of 9/1/24-8/31/28 as a member
9c. To consider and act on the re-appointment of Dani Gorman as the
Municipal Agent for the Youth for the term of 6/2/24-6/1/26.
9d. To consider and act on the re-appointment of Dani Gorman as the
Municipal Agent for the Elderly for the term of 6/2/24-6/1/26.
New Business:
Old Business:
Correspondence:
12a. Email — Pesticide Use — Elvira Johns
12b. Email — Pesticide Use —- Theodore Johns
Consent Agenda
13a. Tax Refund
13b. Board of Selectmen Regular Meeting Minutes August 6, 2024
13c. Board of Selectmen Regular Meeting Minutes August 20, 2024
Adjournment:

HY
Mr. Joseph P. Mancini
Director of Finance and Operations
Mr. Thomas W. Giard tt!
Superintendent of Schools
August 30, 2024
Mr. Robert Brule
First Selectman, Town of Waterford
15 Rope Ferry Road
Waterford, CT 06385
Dear Mr. Brule:
At the August 22, 2024 Board of Education meeting, the Board directed administration to request an
appropriation from fund balance for the following item.
e Moisture and drainage remediation of the Great Neck Elementary School Field
There has been ongoing drainage and excess moisture issues on the field behind Great Neck Elementary School
almost since the school was built. Waterford Recreation and Parks has tried in-house remediation efforts
through the years with little to no impact. Depending on yearly precipitation amounts, the field can be
unusable for large stretches of time, including about a third of the school year last year.
In July of 2024, the Board of Education, with the assistance of the Recreation and Parks Department, contracted
with Tom Irwin Advisors, Inc. to conduct a study and analysis of the field. The full report, attached for your
reference, includes both findings and recommendations. According to the report from Tom Irwin Advisors,
Inc., the expected cost of the remediation of the field is expected to be $278,750.
Investment cost
{assumes high end of range)
Surface Reconstruction, Replace Root zone, Regrade, and New Turf Varieties $ 170,000
Irrigation Installation $ 39,000
Drainage Improvement $ 14,000
Contingency, as recommended by Tom Irwin Advisors, Inc, to address $55,750
unforeseen circumstances, cost increases, overruns, and change orders
(25%)
Total Investment $278,750
We plan to have representation from Tom Irwin Advisors, Inc. at each meeting during this process to address
questions.
Respectively,fe _
Le ? f)—=
Joseph P? Mancini
Director of Finance and Operations
cc: Board of Education
Board of Finance
Superintendent
15 Rope Ferry Road * P.O, Box 284 * Waterford, CT 06385
Phone: 860-444-5801 * Fax: 860-444-5870 * www.waterfordschools.org

Great Neck
Elementary School
Waterford, CT
_ REPORT :

Copyright Notice and Disclaimer
Copyright © 2024 by Tom Irwin Advisors
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, republished, uploaded, distributed, or
transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical
methods, without the prior written permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied
in critical reviews and certain other noncommercial uses permitted by copyright law. You may download any
downloadable materials displayed in the report only for personal, noncommercial and informational purposes,
provided that the documents are not modified and provided you maintain and abide by all copyright, trademark and
other notices contained in such material.
All data and information provided in this report is for general informational purposes only. Since some of the
information in this report relates to legal topics, we want you to understand that no attorney client relationship has
been created. Do not consider the report to be a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a qualified attorney
licensed in your state. Neither the content on this report nor any transmissions between you and the authors
regarding this report are intended to provide legal or other advice or to create an attorney-client relationship.
The Author makes no representations as to accuracy, completeness, currentness, suitability, or validity of any
information contained within, and will not be liable for any errors, omissions, or delays in this information or any
losses, injuries, or damages arising from its display or use, and expressly disclaims all liability for actions taken or not
taken based on any or all of the contents of this report. All results and recommendations are based upon the exact
time and exact location the tests were taken. Conditions can and will change and this may alter or render obsolete
any such recommendations or test results.
Links may appear that may be used to link to other websites. These links are provided solely as a courtesy to our
readers. The author has no control over the linked sites or the materials, information, goods or services available or
contained on these linked sites. The author is not responsible for and does not endorse or warrant in any way any
materials, information, goods or services available through such linked sites or any privacy or other practices of such
linked sites.
Any information contained herein is on an as-is basis. While reasonable efforts have been made to insure that the
information presented is up-to-date, it may not reflect the latest developments in turf grass science or the synthetic
turf industry. This document has been prepared, in part, based upon information furnished by others. While this
information is believed to be reliable, the Authors assume no responsibility for the accuracy of this document or
for any errors or omissions that may have been incorporated into it as a result of incorrect information provided to
the Authors. Those relying on this document are advised to obtain independent verification of its accuracy. Any
use which a third party makes of this document, or any reliance on or any decisions made base upon it, are the sole
responsibility of such third parties. Any opinions expressed are the authors alone and do not reflect he opinions of
any other entity.
THIS REPORT IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE,
TITLE, SECURITY, ACCURACY AND NON-INFRINGEMENT
Comprehensive Sportsfield Analytics and Performance Quality Standards Assessment are Service marks owned by
Tom Irwin Advisors and Performance Quality Standards is a Trademark owned by Tom Irwin Advisors.

Testing Locations
Performance
Testing Location
Test Pit Location @
Se
3 | Great Neck Elementary School

INTRODUCTION:
Waterford Public Schools is a community of learners that fosters and supports high aspirations, ensuring
every student acquires the skills and knowledge necessary to be a responsible citizen, prepared to
contribute and succeed in an ever-changing world.
Ryan McNamara - Director of the Waterford Parks and Recreation Commission, contacted lan Lacy, of
Tom Irwin Advisors (TIA) and asked if he could meet him at Great Neck Elementary School, and evaluate
the athletic field at the school. lan met with Ryan and he explained to lan that the field was not draining
and was a continual problem. We agreed that the field seemed to be holding excessive moisture and
that an Athletic Field Drainage Evaluation was in order.
We utilized elements from out Performance Quality Standards Assessments to provide an objective and
science based approach to the evaluation. We also used drainage specific investigatory techniques such
as examining gradients. and compaction, soils, and test pits.
Our Scope of Work
The scope of the proposal and the Athletic Field Drainage Evaluation was as follows:
Physical Soil Evaluation
Nutritional Soil Evaluation
Surface Hardness Test
Compaction Test at the 1" Depth and the 3” Depth
Sub-Base Material Examination
Soil Profile Test Pit
Athletic Field Gradients Evaluation
POGO+ Volumetric Water Content Analysis
4 | Great Neck Elementary School

SOLUTIONS
Following our Field Drainage Evaluation and an analysis of our findings, we are providing the following
options for a solution to the challenges currently affecting the Great Neck Elementary Schoo! Field. This
Solution can be tailored to meet your time scale and budgets. The following solution is aimed at helping
to improve playability and safety conditions of the multi-use field. More information and guidance can
be found in Appendixes,
Surface Reconstruction, Replace Rootzone, Regrade, and New Turf
Varieties.
Estimated Investment Level: $145,000 - $170,000 (for 60,548 ft field rebuild
not including drainage and irrigation )
irrigation Installation $27,000 - $39,000
Drainage Improvement $5,500 -$14,000
Note: Prices for materials and labor are rapidly changing at the time of this report, the costs listed above
are estimates based on past projects. Note: TIA was only tasked with examining one portion of this field.
The price would be adjusted if the entire field were addressed, For pre-bid budgetary purposes it is wise
to include a contingency of 20-30% for unforeseen developments, cost rises or overruns, and change
orders.)
Note. We strongly recommend the installation of an irrigation system:at this field. An irrigation
system will not only provide vital water to the growing natural grass surface, it will also aid in the
application and availability of nutrients, aid in establishing seed, help relieve compaction, and will:
“reduce the surface hardness. Furthermore as a K-12 site, most chemical products are restricted.
A primary means of protecting a field against excessive weed, pests, ‘and disease is a healthy and
_ dense stand of turf. This can only be ensured with adequate water. Additionally, this field will be
© heavily used during the: prime growing seasons, thus the opportunity to reseed or renovate is
_ time. constrained. Conducting vital cultural activities during a set time period can not be reliably
accomplished if such practices are weather dependent. Irrigation allows these events to happen
when they need to happen. Finally, while this field is used primarily as a recess field at present,
we: cannot be sure that more aggressive sports of practices may not occur on this site int he
future, therefore constructing them to » be as resilient and sustainable as possible i is prudent.
Timescale: Fields out of use for 1 season, desired results achieved over a 1+ year time
frame.
The surface renovation approach can help improve the playing conditions of the field by utilizing the
targeted approach as follows:
Any current irrigation heads would be removed or lowered to not impeded the construction efforts.
5 | Great Neck Elementary School

The surface would be removed using field/turf stripper.
The field would be loosened with a harrow rake or rotadiron to reduce compaction. A this time the
field could be stone picked to remove some of the larger stones.
The field would be consolidated and rough graded to establish adequate grades to move water from
the center of the field to the edges. (1.5% to 2.5%)
& At this point in the process, an irrigation system would be installed.
©} Main lines and laterals would be run and the swing joints installed/ Control wiring and
valve boxes would be placed and protected.
<> The swing joint would be capped off with a “bleeder cap”. Once the rootzone is installed
and upon completion of finish grading, the system will be turned on to dampen areas of
burial and indicated head locations.
© Head location areas can then be excavated by hand to expose the swing joint for cap
removal and head installation.
“3 All sprinkler heads shall be installed, set to specific grade, backfilled and tamped.
<3) The entire system will then be tested zone by zone to ensure proper function, coverage,
adjustment and soil saturation limits.
@ Ashim layer of mediurn to coarse sand, 3’ in depth would be applied and would be rough graded to
match the base material.
An engineered rootzone with approximately 80% sand would be applied at a 6” depth across
the field, this will become the new rootzane. The rootzone material wil! have known and verified
performance characteristics capable of both holding and transporting water. This will be final
graded. The intent is to build the field up to protect the subsurface geothermal systems and to
minimize the extension of the vertical geothermal pipes. Whether or not these pipes can be recessed
into the field should be investigated.
© The final aspect of the surface renovation would be the finish grading of the rootzone material. This
would establish the correct drainage requirements across the surface toward the perimeter drain
area.
“1 The irrigation would be connected and its operation verified.
Proper nutritional supplements would be applied.
Drought, disease and wear tolerant grass varieties will be selected to help establish a more resilient
and sustainable stand of turf. High quality organic and synthetic fertilizers will be used to expedite
the grow-in and maturity of the seed.
41 Cultural activities such as aeration, overseeding and topdressing after the initial seeding success is
better understood will ensure the field has consistent cover and any settling of rootzone material
after the final construction process is complete is remediated.
Drainage Improvement - The Southern end of the field, behind the basketball courts, is typically the
wettest area. The field tends to shed the majority of the surface flow towards this area. This could be
relieved by installing a French type drain that intercepts the water near this back field section. This
section extending around the base of the basketball court and the Eastern edge of this “dog leg" field
section would require approximately 120 linear feet of drain, This would cost approximately $2,000-
& | Great Neck Elementary School

$5,000. If it was decided to run this drain along all of the hard-scape it would cost and additional
$3,500 - $9,160. These are approximate costs based on a 6” drain run at a depth of 12” bedded in
crushed stone and the trench filled with sand. Differing depths, pipe sizes, depth and volume of
trenches, length of runs, and materials will impact costs.
Ongoing Cultural and Plant Health Turf Management Plan:
Estimated additional investment: $5,000-$7,000 per year
Timescale: 1-2 years (growing seasons) to support the approach of either of the options
recommended.
We recommend supporting the cultural operations with the introduction of:
“2 Cultural activities such as aeration, overseeding and topdressing can improve the soil structure
and playing surface considerably, but each operation will need to be repeated on a regular
basis. Localized undulations can be remedied over time through fraise mowing, topdressing, and
concentrated cultural actions.
4 The introduction of drought and disease resistant cultivars through overseeding can help increase
the health and sustainability of the turf surface and provide a soil structure capable of better
infiltration and percolation.
© Additionally, we are recommending the introduction and use of a water management hydration
and penetration agent (Wetting agents). Wetting agents will help move the moisture through the
surface and thatch layer into the root-zone, then dispersing the water evenly throughout the upper
rootzone (Infiltration and hydration properties).
‘With the creation of a Plant Health Turf Management Plan access to the Tom Irwin Planner can help
schedule cultural inputs to be carefully planned around sports schedules. It is also a source for data
storage of all test results, inputs and actions related to the athletic fields. Budgetary, regulatory, and
safety data is accessible through the planner as well.
| Great Neck Elementary School

MAJOR THEMES
The field at Great Neck Elementary is approximately 1.39 Acres or 60,548 ft2. The field has a crown
but is asymmetrical. It slopes in a more profound manner to the East and South. The Eastern edge is
bordered by hard-scape and a basketball court. The Western and Southern ends are ringed with trees.
The Northern end abuts a parking area. There is a slight “dog leg” field area that extend behind the
basketball court. This area is frequently wet.
The field was tested on July 23, 2024 at 10:30 AM. The weather on the day of test was 74° Fahrenheit with
a slight drizzle.
General Observations
There is poor desirable turf cover and a high percentage of bunch-type weed grasses.
The vegetation was primarily Crabgrass (Digitaria Spp.), Bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera), Plantain
(Plantago major), Knotweed (Polygonum aviculare), Orchardgrass (Dactylis glomerata), Clover
(Trifolium repens) and Rush Juncus Tenuis).
The field is generally graded towards the school. The grade is severe in areas, over a short distance.
There appeared to be a drainage culvert behind the school in the Southeast corner.
The field was very compact down the center (between goal mouths), creating bare area void of any
vegetation. The bare areas registered Surface Hardness readings that exceeded safety thresholds.
2 Geothermal infrastructure for the school is under the main section of the field. There are pipes and
covers sticking out of the ground just beyond center/test pit location. Enclosing or burying these
should be considered.
@ There appeared to be 5 strips running the length of the field with darker vegetation, possibly
differing soil conditions covering infrastructure pipes.
& Bunch-type growth of vegetation made walking the field unstable, unable to get frequent flat
footing.
Soil Profile Test Pits
= While the soil compaction at the surface was not excessive, as the penetrometer was pushed deeper
in the soil profile the soil compaction rose exponentially.
= None of the instruments or tools were able to penetrate the surface deeper than 9.5” in depth.
There were large stones (+8") very tightly packed with a soil/gravel mix at the 9.5” depth.
“1 We were not able to test the surface harciness of the base material due its reading being out of
range. We could not test the 3” compaction level of the base material for fear of damage (bending
visibly) to the cone penetrometer.
It is very unlikely water can percolate through the soil profile efficiently in its current physical state.
8 | Great Neck Elementary School

Soils
This soil, given the high percentage of fine particles, will likely have a very slow infiltration rate.
(Testing Infiltration rate was agreed to be unnecessary due to the observed standing water during
the initial site walk.)
With 63.4% being considered “fine” aggregates, this soil has a very low aeration porosity (1.8%) and
a high capillary porosity (46.1%).In a perfect situation these numbers would be equal. Due to this
significant imbalance the field is more likely to hold water after heavy rain and prevent it from free
draining under the influence of gravity.
The pH is low at 5.6, the low soil pH may limit access to some nutrients essential for turfgrass
establishment and vigor.
The soil is deficient in Calcium, Magnesium and Potassium.
The saturated paste soil test identified a higher percentage of Sodium compared to Potassium, which
is creates a difficult environment to establish turfgrass.
Surface Hardness and Compaction
9
The average compaction level at the 1” depth was 149 PSI, the values ranged from 119 PSI to 213 PSI
which is slightly high.
The average compaction level at the 3“ depth was 354 PSI, the values ranged from 307 PSI to 456 PSI
which is excessive.
Soil compaction values over 300 PSI are detrimental to root growth and will likely impact water
infiltration.
The average surface hardness was 61 GMax with values ranging from 41 GMax to 74 GMax, this is
very inconsistent.
Additional tests on bare area's registered readings of 109, 118 and 125 GMax, which all exceed
thresholds established by governing bodies of sport.
_ Note: Surface Hardness was detected to be greater than 100 GMax at three locations tested. - :
Allfive test points, tested across the site, showed GMax values. weil below the threshold of 100. .
GMax. The test locations showed GMax readings of 41, 57, 70, 63, and 74. The average is 61
Gmax which:would rate as excessively soft in our Performance Quality Standards rating system.
The reason for the: discrepancy is that the readings. 2100 Gmax were additional readings taken.
in areas that were bare of vegetative cover. These were areas that are worn, dry, and heavily
“compacted, Most of the field is overly moist with a water. content of 32.8% and thus not overly
hard, Moisture, compaction, vegetation, and. soil characteristics all dynamically impact surface -
hardness.
To mitigate surface hardness, in the short term, itis recommended that a core aeration be carried
out actoss.the field and the site top dressed heavily with sand. This will loosen ‘the soil, allow
water:to penetrate, and:help establish a denser vegetative cover.
|
Great Neck Elementary School

POGO+ Volumetric Water Content Survey
The average Volumetric Water Content (VWC%) was 32.8% which is high.
There was quite a bit of variability with VWC% ranging from 15.8% to 45.7%. This range is from dry
to near field capacity or the saturation point.
The water distribution uniformity was 64% which is not consistent.
The Southern and Western portions of the site were the wettest.
Differing soil moisture levels within the same field present a challenge for efficient and sustainable
maintenance.
Site Gradients
& The Northern end of the field is mainly flat with a drop toward the Eastern edge.
The Western edge is nearly flat towards the center.
The gradients at the Northern end range from 0.6% to 0.83%. In contrast the gradients at the
Southern end range from 1.35% top 1.72%, this is very inconsistent and likely contributing to the
variability in VWC% across the field.
@ The center of the Western edge is approximately 3” below the center whereas the Eastern edge is
approximately 15" below the center.
= The water will tend to flow to the East and to the South towards the culvert behind the school.
10 | Great Neck Elementary School

WHAT'S NEXT:
The issues uncovered during our investigation can be repaired. We are cognizant of the budgetary
implications of our recommendations, however we are aware that Waterford has been pursuing solutions
for many years. Our goal is to provide our best recommendation which will yield your desired results. It
is ultimately fiscally imprudent to pursue a series of stop gap measures that will not solve the problem
for the longer term. For any project to be sustainable, it must incorporate fiscal sustainability into its
vision. Our approach should mitigate the wet conditions for all but the most severe rain events. It should
be noted that our recommended solution also involves an increase in periodic maintenance. It makes
little sense to invest in a field renovations and then avoid incorporating the required maintenance. The
aggressive approaches of removing the sod, loosening the base material, and adding a new rootzone
and Intensive Cultural Rehabilitation, can provide achievable results in a respectable timetable while still
respecting fiscal constraints.
It is in the fields best interest that the correct materials, procedures, and equipment with knowledgeable
operators follow a well drafted, clear, and concise specification. Any planned work will require diligent
oversight and direction to the contractors. This is essential to correct the deficits noted in this field,
providing a safe surface for the student athletes, and ultimately helping the maintenance staff to realize
the fields full potential.
41 | Great Neck Elementary School

Further Guidance
if you have any questions regarding this document, the recommendations discussed, or the
challenges that you face, please reach out to us. We are eager to help support you and your vision
moving forward.
We are composed of a unique team of highly qualified professionals who; have consulted on sports
fields globally for FIFA and other governing bodies of sport; have lectured at Universities and in other
academic settings; have contributed to the development of many industry and professional standards;
have renovated and constructed sports fields for every level of the game, and, have spent decades
carefully and conscientiously managing turf that we care deeply about. We would be honored to
provide any assistance, guidance, and advice that you require.
lan facy
Lead Project Advisor
(781) 999-4320
ianlacy@tomirwinadvisors.com
Kevin Dufour
Environment and Sustainability Advisor
(781) 999-5464
kevin@tomirwinadvisors.com
Jack Schmidgall
Design and Construction Advisor
(781) 382-4272
jacks@tomirwinadvisors.com
Scott Vose
Technical Advisor
(860) 428-5294
scottvose@tomirwinadvisors.com
TOMIRWIN ADVISORS, INC, _/

APPENDIX
Appendix 1: Moisture Survey
Appendix 2: Field Gradient Evaluation
Appendix 3: Soil Investigation
Appendix 4: Sub-base Material Examination
Appendix 5: Performance Testing
Appendix 6: Test Pit Data
13° | Great Neck Elementary School

APPENDIX 1:
MOISTURE SURVEY
The field was mapped using POGO Pro Plus GPS Moisture surveying tool. This tool allows a visual
interpretation of the differences in Volumetric Water Content (VWC%) across the field. A series of 18
sample points were logged at even intervals. The sample points were then mapped and saved to the
POGO Cloud, which can instantaneously produce a heat map, highlighting any significant differences in
Volumetric Water Content. The results of the POGO Survey were quite telling. You can find the VWC%
Heat Map image below..
The field was moist with 32.8% volumetric water content. The field had only received 0,1" of rain over the
previous days. The field had a wide range of moisture readings between 16% and 46% This much of the
area is near field capacity and the field would be starved for oxygen. The compacted and finely grained
soils coupled with the inconsistent gradients would not allow for the field to process excess moisture. In
the POGO+ visual representation below South is at the top of the image.
Soccer
6) Moisture (High)
Distribution Uniformity
Turf Performance
Jul 23rd.2024, 10:45 am
Set 1-18 Samples
14 | Great Neck Elementary School

APPENDIX 2:
FIELD GRADIENT EVALUATION
Field gradient confirmation is critical for understanding drainage capabilities of an Athletic Field. The
slope of the field is directly related to surface flow. Visual and gradient observations highlighted the
presence of localized undulations. These low spots will tend to collect water, creating areas of high
volumetric water content (VWC), which generate optimal conditions for undesirable vegetation (Annual
Bluegrass, Clover, and Plantain) which can thrive in saturated soils. Overly saturated soils also present
unstable footing, potentially causing unsafe playing conditions after precipitation events.
Avery important factor in achieving consistency of turfgrass cover across an Athletic Field is the surface
grades. Inevitably, heavy precipitation will occur on any field. The “lay of the land” will determine
how efficiently water is able to move across the surface ifthe soil is unable to percolate water through
the profile. Ideally the field will slope on a consistent plane away from the infield. Low laying areas,
inconsistent with the grades on the rest of the field tend to hold water, forcing the turfgrass to handle
saturated conditions until excess water is evaporated or percolates through the profile.
The laser transit was set up In the center of the field and reading were taken in a grid like pattern around
the field, It is clear from the gradient image (see next page) that the grades are very inconsistent across
the field. Generally the water will flow from South to North. The field also is much flatter in the Northern
end than the Southern end. The field is also flatter on the western edge. This inconsistent slope across
the field will render any water movement as inefficient. Furthermore the soils physical composition makes
the soil more likely to hold water against the force of gravity and therefore, it will remain wet once it
becomes wet.
The impact of repeated drills in the same areas may also be a contributing factor to inefficient surface
flow. These drills tend to compact the soils in localize areas. Shifting drills on a regular basis is a best
practice.
The field is very inconsistent with some flattish sections. Native soil fields are typically pitched to be
1.5% to 3.0% grade to adequately shed water. The Southern edge was the only area that fell within the
expected range. The field slopes to the West with only an approximately 3” drop over approximately 75’,
to the East the field drops more noticeably with a change in elevation of about 1’ 3” over 75’,
Regular maintenance, including top dressing, can also help alleviate the impacts of localized wear.
Aeration, both deep tine “venting:” and hollow core aeration can remedy the compaction that occurs
at the surface level which will impede water infiltration. The regular use of appropriate wetting agents
which can break the surface tension and allow water to penetrate quickly should be part of this fields
maintenance pian.
15 | Great Neck Elementary School

Town of Waterford, CT
Great Neck ES
Field Gradients
aN = Datum Point
“WN ® = Spot Elevation
NORTH
estas
46 | GreatN
scat seus eamncrrs
eck Elementary School

APPENDIX 3:
SOIL INVESTIGATION
Why Soils are Important
Each sports field is a unique and living system. Every field requires a bespoke approach in order to
maximize the sites strengths and minimize the challenges. A cookie cutter approach will not work. A sites
soil must be evaluated. The ability to drain and transport water needs to be measured. The ability to
nurture a vibrant and self-healing natural grass surface must be determined. It starts with evaluating your
on-site materials. It starts with the soils.
The soils are the limiting factor for the success of any field. The physical soil composition and the relative
distribution of particle sizes dictate the volume and uniformity of macro and micro pores. These minute
spaces control the movement of water though the soil. The presence of water not only hydrates the plants
but also enables the nutrient and mineral exchange between the plant's roots and the surrounding soils.
Furthermore, the macro and micro pores, along with the capillary action of soil moisture, drive air and gas
exchange that is vital to plant health. These are some of the ecosystem services provided by your field’s
soils.
Understanding the state of your soils is crucial to your field's long-term sustainability. The nutritional and
mineral availability of your soils preordains its ability to nurture grass plants. A proper mineral balance will
help the plant metabolize nutrients and properly photosynthesize the energy necessary for its vigor.
The bioavailability of minerals and nutrients determines your field's ability to propagate new plants and
regenerate existing ones. Your soils determine your field’s performance and durability.
There is a single opportunity to ensure a project's success in a cost effective and efficient manner. This
opportunity starts with an understanding of your soils.
We rely on objective scientific data, where possible and applicable, to help us fully understand what we
have observed, we discussed the following three options for testing the performance characteristics of
the Athletic Field's soil:
4. Turf and Soil Diagnostics — Soil Performance Testing
2. Logan Lab, Inc. - Base and Paste Saturated Nutritional Testing
3. Tom Irwin Advisors ~ On Site Test Pit Testing
soil Sampling Methodology:
It was agreed a thorough testing regime was warranted. Based on our observations we tested the soils for
the following criteria:
17, | Great Neck Elementary School

"Physical Property Analysis Testing (Turf and Soil Diagnostics)
& Saturated Paste Extract (Logan Laboratories)
©) Nutrient Test (Logan Laboratories)
Turf and Soil Diagnostics
Soil Core Extraction Process:
4. First, we measured the dimensions of the field.
2, We marked The Field in a grid formation.
a. Asample was extracted at each approximate grid intersection as well as intermediary points giving
an approximate total of 70+ sample locations.
4, Each of the samples was approximately 5 inches in depth and 3/4” in diameter. All samples were
taken with a TurfTec 36” step soil sampler.
5. The samples were aggregated into a large collection bucket and processed for laboratory analysis.
%. (Complete TSD/ISRTC submittal form and place inside shipping box with samples. Stuff shipping box
with bubble wrap to minimize core movement during shipping.
#, Complete FedEx/UPS label and attach to box. Always ship TSD samples to Trumansburg, NY branch.
Keep the top sheet of shipping label for your own records.
8. Drop box off at FedEx drop box site, FedEx Center, or order for a pickup. Or use UPS.
Soil Investigation
Composite Soil Sampling and Interpretation
As part of the investigation composite samples were collected and sent to Turf and Soil Diagnostics
for laboratory analysis. The topsoil from across field was collected as one composite sample which was
subject to a complete physical analysis.
Turf and Soil Diagnostics has assigned the same textural classification to both topsoil composite
samples, Sandy Loam. This is a very common soil type in the Northeast, which can be used successfully
in performance turfgrass settings, if maintained properly. It should be noted that the soil particle size
distribution is challenged. 30.8% silt and 9.5% clay will make this yield hard to manage. In addition, 9% of
the sands are very fine sands and 14.1% is in the fine range. 23.1% of this soil is fine sand particles. Only
36.7% of the sand fraction is in the medium or coarser fractions.
A few other interesting notes on the performance testing of the field composite is the pH of 5.6 This is an
low pH level and may make some nutrients harder to access. The pH of a soil determines the availability
of plant nutrients for roots to uptake and maintain plant health. At pH below 6, some micro nutrients are
locked up in the soil and inaccessible to plants.
18 | Great Neck Elementary School

The organic matter content was elevated at 4.54%. This is not uncommon in native soil fields. Once
Organic Mater becomes elevated it becomes difficult to control. Organic matter can break down into
smaller particles and mimic the impact of fine silts and clays. tt can hold water and slow infiltration.
Ideally an Organic Matter content at or below 3-4% is preferred.
Another interesting observation uncovered in our examinations was the ratio of nitrate to ammonium.
Generally the ratio is approximately 4:1 in favor of nitrate. This is a quick indicator of microbial activity in
the soils as soil microbes convert ammonium to nitrate in a process called nitrification. This is the process
that enables soil nutrients to be absorbed and utilized by the plants. Without a vigorous microbial
community, the plants have a much more difficult time accessing nutrients and minerals necessary for
growth. The ratio of nitrate to ammonium was very unbalanced with nitrate at 13.4 ppm and ammonium
at 1.4 ppm, Thatis a ratio of about 10:1, a far cry from 4:1. Nearly all of the available nitrogen has been
used. The process of nitrification is governed, in part, by both the amount of air and water available in
the soil,
19 | Great Neck Elementary School

Photo 1: Bare areas displaying a slightly stony surface and Photo 2: Weed roots reaching approximately 3" in depth.
heavy weeds..
Photo 3: A small asphalt chunk within the top 5”. Photo 4: The observed striping effect across the field. This
may be due to a differing soil composition.
20 | Great Neck Elementary School

2 PASI Re oS nana
OGLE eee se = na ¥ = ad s
soils and thin roots with limited penetration.
Photo 5: Test plit photo, note the fine grained
Photo 6: Excavation piles from the Test Pit. Note the color change on the tip soil shelf of the test pit and the color change of
the excavated piles. Each pile represents a different layer within the profile. Note also the heavy bunch type weed pressure.
21 | Great Neck Elementary School

Woo BeppyMNY;:dnY <OUSqEM ¥ wWoo'BeIpun@®ae| -yeury
LeZ-992-958 BUOY HM OBerL AN Eingsuewruy, Yeans Supt se
ZjoLebeg
~~ fq parnainay
SOD) ly PHONE
“J8YO| |EYUSUeN & YW paniedes oiom sejdweg
“our ‘soysoubelg [los g YN Woy UoIsstuNed Lahm ynoLIM IIny UL }deoxe Psonpades aq jou AewW podas SIU;
"umOYs Sefdiues ey} 0} Aju UjeHed sJusluWOS pue peAteoal se pe]sa) ese sejdweS
UORROUIssEIO Yos Jo suOHIUYEp YSN Suisn payoda geq
€ POW ZEST KLLS Vs
iueo7 Apueg aysodeg 110506i | L-r6e0s|
SS2ID jeINyXo]| eueN ajdwes #0) 927
o6 Vek vol ge zk sé EXT 96s ve Lot SE aysodivog [josdo || L-PSE0S|
Ww SOO mui ObO WU SZ0 uu OS"0 Wu QTE wu g'Z | wug'y | wo ES
ould "A auld UInIpey BSIROQ BSIZOD “A Ke19 Us pues OL “ON S°ON ov/L SUWEN e1dues #al get
pauleyay % Ye %
s9JoUeIC e[O2;Ue PUES <sipredes Jog feaesg
Worn puibg / ezIg BAaIS
ONUSSL
“we
p20C-9e-NT :GAAIDTY 3Lva
(Ze914 WLS) 3zis STOLL
£0810
Yiy
'uo}Bung
Wags Vib
SHOSIADY UIMUY WOL (OL EHOdHea
Jooupg Areuomery 490N 7eOID
NOS LMOdTY 1ST STVINALW
sonsouselg flog gy ny

Turf & Soil Diagnostics
July 34, 2024
Tom (rwin Advisors
Scott Vose
Great neck Elementary School
TSD File #50394
This report details the results of the Topsoil Composite sample, which was
tested as received. No specifications were provided for this project, but our
understanding is that this soil will be used for sports fields.
The Topsail Composite sample is classified as sandy joam per the USDA
textural classification scheme. Most of the sand particles are in the coarse to fine
sand fractions.
Sandy loam soils typically have potential to provide acceptable water and
nutrient holding for most turf and landscapes. They provide limited internal
drainage and can be ptone to excess compaction under heavy use. Proper slopes
should be used to facilitate adequate surface drainage.
if the soil is used as is, care should be taken during any renovation or
construction work to prevent excessive compaction. The soil shouldn't be handled
when wet. Equipment with low ground pressure is recommended to place and
grade of the soil.
Please let us know if you have any questions or are in need of further
assistance. Samples are generally kept on the premises for 45 days after report
date. Thank you for using Turf & Soil Diagnostics, Inc.
: Digitally signed by Quane K. Otto
Duane K. Ottosz 2024.07.31 10:58:31 -04'00!
Duane K. Otto
Vice President
Page 2 of 2
35 King Street, Trumansburg, NY 14886
Phone: 855-769-4231 Email: ab@turfdiag.com Web: www.turfdiag.com
23 | Great Neck Elementary School

Job Name: TWAFDE-24
Soil Report
Date: 8/2/2024
Company: Tom Irwin Advisors Inc Submitted By: Scott Vose
‘Sample Location Play: Area
_ Sample 10.
Lab Number 24
Sample Depth in inches 4
Total Exchange Capacity (M. E,) 4.68
pH of Soil Sample 5.6
Organic Matter, Percent 4,54
@® | SULFUR: ppm. 28
S
Z | Mehtich il Phospharaus: a8 (P,0,) 69
ibs f acre
Desired Value 848
gy | CALCIUM: Value Found 696
3 tos J ace °
2 Daficit -152
=
=tA Desired Value 134
@ | MAGNESIUM: Value Found 48
x ibs f acre
ay Deficit -86
goz= | potassium: Oesired Value 134
g Ibs / acre Value Found 65
a Deficit -69
SODIUM: (os / acre 28
wz | Salelum 60 16 20%) 55.78
3 | Magnesium (16:10 20%), 6.44
iEe ‘Potasstum (2 40:54). 267
Feo} Sadium (8 ta. 3%) 197
aFA Other. Bases (Variable), 6.20.
ob
oo. Exchangable Hydrogen-(10:19:16%) £2700
w“ Boron (p.p.m.) 0.4
& Iron (ppm) 122
fd Manganese (p.p.m.) §
=a Copper (p.p.m.} 2.05
aa Zine (p.p.m.} 2.47
&
Aluminum (p.p.m.) 1213
ow Ammonium (p.p.m) 1.4
ST Nitrate (p.p.m) 13.4
=
QO Siticon ppm 57
Great Neck Elementary School
Logan Labs, LLC

Saturated Paste Report
Job Name TWAFDE-24 pate 8/2/2024
Company Tom Irwin Advisors Inc Submitted By Scatt Vose
‘Sample Location Play Area
Sample ID
Lab Number 220068
Water Used Dl
pH 5.6
Soluble Salts ppm 29
Chlotide (C)) pom 18
Bicarbonate (HCO3) perm 7
g SULFUR Pom 4.72
2 | prosprorus ppm 0.06
ppm 416
CALCIUM
mea/l 0.24
2 vem 4.43
id MAGNESIUM
$ megyl 0.09
a
od3 ppm. 2.19
2 POTASSIUM:
a meqfl : 0.06
Pore, 2.23
sopium: meqfl * 0.10
Calchum 45.56
&Gi Magnesium 20.64
f Potassium 12.49
Sodium 21.30
w Boron {p.p.m.) 0.02
2 Iron (p.p.m,) 2.67
ay Manganese (p.p.m.) 0.03
a Copper (p-p.m.) 0.62
x Zine (p.p.m.) 0.02
Aluminum (p.p.m.)} 1.76
z
Q
Logan Labs, LLC
25 | Great Neck Elementary School

APPENDIX 4:
SUB-BASE MATERIAL EXAMINATION
The sub-base material is similar to the topsoils. The material was finely grained with a high percentage
of silt. The base material began a 6.5” in depth. !t was extremely hard and compact. The sub-base had
a few large stones and many smaller stones. Of note was the compaction level of the sub-base. The 1”
compaction level was 418 PSI. 3" compaction levels were unable to be recorded due to the fact that the
cone penetrometer could not be inserted into the soil without damage. The Clegg Hammer recorded
readings that were “off scale" for surface hardness. This is an extreme reading. The sub-base layer only
was at a depth of 6.5",
26 | Great Neck Elementary School

APPENDIX 5:
SURFACE HARDNESS AND COMPACTION TEST
(PERFORMANCE TESTING)
The field was tested at five locations for Surface Hardness and Compaction at two depths. Surface
Hardness is measured in GMax using a Clegg meter. An accelerometer is used to determine the force
of impact the surface can absorb. The harder the surface, the higher the GMax. Soil compaction
levels were determined using a digital penetrometer, which is a tipped probe measures the PSI or
compaction level through a soil profile. Both tools are used to check the consistency of surface and soil
conditions across the field.
Test Point #1 133 PSI 456 PSI 41 GMax
Test Point #2 — 142 PSl Beeps 57.GMax
Test Point #3 119 PSI 307 PSI 70 GMax
TestPoint#4 | 38 PST }333PS) 168. GMax.
Test Point #5
213 PSI 326 PSI 74. Gmax
Average 9 PSI [35 . 61 GN
The Grnax readings display spongy surface overall. This is reflected in the high volumetric Water
Content of the soil and the fact the soil was very slow draining. On the day of the initial needs
assessment, lan Lacy noted standing water on the field. It was reported that the field had difficulty
draining. All of the field had high compaction readings. An average 3“ compaction reading of 354 PS|
is high and this will impact he ability of the grass plants to thrive. The reason for the high compaction
levels yet the relatively soft clegg readings is that the surface is holding moisture and is remaining soft
while the slightly lower levels are compacting under traffic with the fine grained particles (silt & clay)
occupying the larger pore spaces between the sand grains, The end result is less aeration porosity, and
less ability to drain.
It needs to be noted that the fields surface Hardness readings or GMax is very inconsistent across the
surface. The data points revealed a range of GMax values between 41 GMax and 74 GMax. These
values are somewhat soft. However, in the bare areas the Clegg readings were 109, 118 and 125. The
NFL considers any reading above 100 GMax on the Clegg Hammer to be an action level where some
corrective action must occur to relieve the hardness.
The vegetative cover was varied across the field with some areas being devoid of vegetation and some
being fairly lush. In these areas the grass was tufted and there was a high percentage of Clover and
Crabgrass.
27 | Great Neck Elementary School

APPENDIX 6:
SOIL PROFILE TEST PIT:
A deep test pit enable us to view the underlying soil horizons. Through a deep test pit analysis, we can
observe the soils sub-base and all subsequent soil lifts. We can critically evaluate the soil composition
and underlying soil structures, This is a critical test when evaluating an Athletic Field with poor
performance characteristics.
Using the POGO Data, field gradient survey and observations made walking the field it was determined
the best course for the investigation would be to dig a test pit, measuring approximately 24”x24"x7". &"
was the maximum achievable depth with hand tools.
The Test Pit would be in the center of the field. This location was also performance test point #3
(See the Test Point map for guidance on the location)
Discussion of Results:
In our investigations we found that the soils were very compact and silty. The vegetation was largely
crabgrass, clover, knotweed, rush, and orchard grass. It was found that there was a variable amount root
zone material, approximately 4” inches on top of the sub-base material with a higher amount of larger
aggregates and some debris present. When looking across the field the field appeared to have darker
strips of vegetation. This may be due to an inconsistent soil applied to the surface to renovate recent
work on a geothermal system. Within the test pit, it was also illuminating that the GMax readings only
exceeded the standard of 100 GMax at the sub-base. The three readings in bare areas on the surface
exceeded 100 GMax.
The soils, throughout the field had a very high percentage of fine particles. Generally, aoproximately
40.3 % of the soil is composed of silt and clay. This high proportion of very small soil particles indicate
a soil that will be tightly structured with the fine particles filling the voids between the larger particles.
These fine particles will hold water through capillary attraction and the soil will quickly become boggy
and anaerobic. Waterlogged, low oxygen soil, is toxic to most plant roots. As the plant roots die,
the organic matter content will increase over time. This organic matter breaks down into fine silt like
particles further impeding drainage via gravity. Also, this organic matter acts like a sponge and holds
water exacerbating the situation.
The fine sands exaggerate this imbalance in soil particle distribution. About 23.1 % of the sands are
classified as fine or very fine. This results in even less available pore space that can be filled with air
rather than water. It is these larger pore spaces that free drain under the influence of gravity. The water
28 | Great Neck Elementary School

can not readily penetrate deeply through the soil profile. t must move across the field and away through
proper surface grades. ‘
Test Pit 4 Data
Crabgrass, Clover, Rush, Knotweed, ;
Surface
laye:
Plantain present.
Top soil
215 PSI More Stones, very compact.
San
Base
12+" 418 PSI n/t n/t Extremely dense
Test Pit Methodology:
It was agreed that further investigation into the soil profile was warranted. The test pit allowed for the
following information to be gathered:
”
2)
ey
Oo
View and understand soil horizons
Observe soils sub-base and all subsequent soil lifts
Critically evaluate soil compasition and underlying soils
Evaluate the field's limiting characteristics
Observe if a water table is present
The location is indicated on the attached Sample Location Plan
Deep Test Pit Excavation Process-
4. A 24x24" piece of the sod layer was removed.
2. Using a shovel, the subsoil was disrupted and removed in lifts. Shelves to observe and test the
differing depths were created.
3. Each lift was documented, photographed, and logged for review.
4. Hardness, Volumetric Water Content and compaction testing was conducted at each lift.
Once all information was documented, the test pit was filled in and compacted at 3” lifts, taking special
care that the final sod layer was replaced with little to no evidence that the test pit had been dug.
29 | Great Neck Elementary School

TOM IRWIN ADVISO RS.
Speak with lan Lacy at 781-999-4320 or
give.us the. details of your project at

‘
L