Cromwell Council Unanimously Backs Option 1 Design for WISP Field Drainage

Town Council · Meeting of June 25, 2026

Cromwell advances least expensive drainage fix for WISP fields, eyeing state grants. The Cromwell Town Council voted unanimously at a June 25 special joint meeting with the Board of Finance to pursue engineering design of Option 1, a sand-cap buildup drainage system, for the fields at the West Intermediate School. Town Engineer John Harriman and Weston and Sampson landscape architect Ryan Chmielewski presented three options ranging from a roughly $1.5 million sand-cap approach to a $3.1 million full-depth reconstruction; staff recommended Option 1 as the most grant-competitive and least disruptive, noting that Option 3 would take the fields offline for 18 to 24 months.

Council members questioned whether the performance gap between the two options — Option 3 drains at more than 10 inches per hour versus Option 1's 4 inches — justified the additional cost, with the town manager noting that a grant at the $3.1 million level was "a snowball's chance" while $1 to $1.5 million in state assistance was realistic. Two residents spoke against any taxpayer spending on the project; a third argued the cost has grown because "the town has delayed doing anything about it for over 20 years."

In the full story:

• The three options, in summary
• Who Was There
• Organizations And Documents Referenced
• The complete report — 2,438 words

Source: the Town Council meeting of June 25, 2026, reported from the official video recording and transcript.

The Full Article

Meeting Called to Order and Joint Session

The Cromwell Town Council opened its special meeting on the evening of June 25, 2026, running it concurrently with a special meeting of the Cromwell-Paris Board of Finance. The joint format was intentional: council leadership noted that the decision about which drainage option to advance for the fields at the West Intermediate School was simultaneously a financial, environmental, strategic, and playability question. Because engineering funds for the project had already been appropriated, the Board of Finance was present in an advisory capacity and was not required to cast a formal vote.

Council Member DeProto arrived a few minutes after the opening, and the chair indicated the meeting would proceed through citizens' comments and into the engineering presentation before any action.

Citizens' Comments

Three voices reached the council before the technical presentation began, two skeptical and one in favor of moving forward.

An email from Joseph DaVincio, described as a lifelong Cromwell resident with 35 years of landscaping and field-maintenance experience, was read into the record. DaVincio argued that the WISP fields have improved significantly over the past 15 years, that standing water observed after a recent one- to two-inch rain had already drained or evaporated by the time he walked the site on a Tuesday, and that the fields' primary problem is overuse, not inadequate infrastructure. He specifically named "chill soccer" — a paid-to-play organization — as a regular user that, in his view, contributes to wear without compensating the town. He concluded that spending any public money on the fields would be "a waste of taxpayer money."

Mike Cannata, 136 Nooksell Road, addressed the council in person. He told the boards he had just received his tax bill and described the potential price tag as "out of control." He said he would not object to a fully grant-funded solution but called on the council to stop any further taxpayer expenditure on the fields in the absence of external funding.

Jason LeBlanc, 3 Cedar Drive, offered a rebuttal. He said the fields are used not only by soccer but also by baseball, softball, and West Intermediate School students for field days. He noted that the state of Connecticut was in a drought at the time of the meeting and that the relative dryness of the fields in late June was misleading: "If you go there in April, when it rains much more and they're used much more, then after a rain like we had the other day, they would be much, much worse." LeBlanc was the most direct of the three commenters in laying out the connection between delay and cost, saying the problem's price tag is high "because the town has delayed doing anything about it for over 20 years." He also explained the procedural logic that shaped the evening: the town cannot apply for grants without a shovel-ready design in hand, meaning Thursday's vote was a precondition for any grant pursuit.

WISP Field Drainage — Engineering Presentation

Background and stakes: The WISP fields were built roughly 20 years ago on a former agricultural property that had been treated with herbicides and pesticides. State Department of Energy and Environmental Protection regulations required removal of the top three feet of contaminated soil before the site could be converted to a school campus. The replacement material, chosen at that time, has proven nearly impermeable and unsuitable for a sports-field application. This history was the subject of extended discussion among council members and is the root cause of the drainage failures the project is now designed to address.

The question before the body: The council was asked to select one of three engineered drainage solutions — designated Option 1, Option 2, and Option 3 — to advance to final shovel-ready design, using engineering funds already appropriated.

Substantive content: Weston and Sampson landscape architect Ryan Chmielewski presented the three options. His firm, based in Rocky Hill and active along the East Coast, conducted percolation testing, slope analysis, and subsurface investigation at the WISP site. Key findings included

Slope: Much of the soccer fields carries a grade between zero and 1 percent. The preferred minimum for natural turf drainage is 1.25 to 1.5 percent.

Subsoil: Test holes revealed typical silty upper soil over fill material that is "almost impenetrable."

Existing drainage: Dry wells on-site have reached the end of a 20-year lifespan, choked with fines and sediment. Existing pipes on parts of the site back-drain toward the fields rather than away from them.

Underground capacity: Town Engineer John Harriman reported that weekly groundwater monitoring conducted from winter through June found the high groundwater elevation this past year to be one foot below the proposed underground stormwater chamber system — confirming sufficient design capacity.

The three options, in summary

Option 1 — Sand-cap buildup system: Installs two- to three-inch lateral under-drains at six-foot spacing (tighter spacing compensates for the flat grade), connects them to underground stormwater chambers, and builds a two-inch sand cap over the existing topsoil without regrading. Drainage rate: approximately 4 inches per hour. The cap can be built up incrementally over time if performance requires it. Estimated cost: approximately $1.5 million.

Option 2 — Partial field reconstruction: Removes several inches of existing soil, blends in five inches of sand using a blecavator (a large-scale rototiller), and achieves an eight-inch root zone depth. A midpoint option in cost and disruption.

Option 3 — Full-depth reconstruction: Excavates the top 12 inches of material entirely, installs eight inches of pre-blended root zone mix over four inches of drainage stone with tightly spaced under-drains, and regraders all subgrades to proper pitch. Drainage rate: more than 10 inches per hour — the standard for high-performing collegiate and professional fields. Estimated cost: approximately $3.1 million. Downtime: 18 to 24 months with no viable alternate field location identified.

Critically, Harriman and Chmielewski both noted that all three options incorporate the same underground stormwater chambers as their foundational drainage component. The difference is in what is built above that system. The chambers are designed to connect eventually to a deep sand layer that exists naturally below the site's problematic fill, providing significant long-term infiltration capacity.

The deliberation: The most extended exchange of the evening concerned whether the performance difference between Option 1 and Option 3 justified a cost difference of roughly $1.6 million. Council Member Hulick was the most persistent voice on this point, arguing that the only option that genuinely solved the underlying problem was Option 3 and that the discussion was not adequately weighing long-term maintenance costs, field-use capacity, and infrastructure lifespan against the upfront savings of Option 1.

"I just don't hear that — I still come away from this like, why are we even talking about Option 3 if the difference really is small? It doesn't feel to me like they can't possibly be small." [01:28:00] — Council Member Anne Hulick

Harriman responded directly to that framing, noting that none of the options actually remove the three feet of problematic fill — Option 3 addresses only the top 12 inches. The fundamental solution in all three is to get water into drains and chambers rather than let it pool. Option 1 achieves this at the field surface; Option 3 does it with greater engineered precision and speed.

"Option one gives you a sand cap layer that when the water precipitates and hits that hard layer underneath, it has somewhere to run. And when it runs, it's running into drains that aren't there now. That's the difference." [01:12:00] — Town Engineer John Harriman

The town manager — identified from the dais as Tony — acknowledged the technical ideal of Option 3 but framed the fiscal reality plainly: a grant of $3.1 million is unlikely, while a grant in the range of $1 to $1.5 million is a credible target. He and Harriman discussed plans to also purchase a hollow-tine aerator to supplement Option 1 by pulling full plugs from the soil rather than compacting it further with the town's current solid-tine machine.

Council Member DeProto asked whether a phased approach — treating the soccer fields first and the baseball fields separately — was feasible. Chmielewski said phasing was possible. Council member commentary suggested the council wanted the design team to explore phasing as an option, though this was not included in the formal motion.

Council Member Waters offered historical context: he recalled that during the original school construction, an agricultural engineer had advised that the contaminated soil could be remediated in place through plowing and harrowing over three years at minimal cost, but that community pressure led to the more expensive removal-and-replacement approach. "My opinion, what I felt at the time — what it cost the taxpayers to get rid of all that topsoil that was good and haul it to Massachusetts for a million dollars." Waters concluded that the town is now paying a second time for that original decision.

Board of Finance input: Without a formal vote required, Board of Finance members offered their perspective on the record. One member said Option 1 appeared most reasonable given the competition for capital across all town projects. Another said he wished the town could do nothing at all, that enforcement of field-closure policies and the new aerator should be tried first, but acknowledged that the drainage infrastructure will not improve on its own. A third said the goal was simply to see Option 1 actually deliver the promised results: "We're gonna tell people we're gonna spend a million and a half dollars and now these fields are gonna be playable."

Procedural steps and outcome: Council Member Waters moved to select Option 1 for design. Council Member DeProto seconded. The motion carried unanimously. The chair noted that this vote advances the project to final shovel-ready engineering design — the step required before any grant application can be submitted. No construction appropriation was voted on.

Implications and what is next: With a design contract now authorized under already-allocated engineering funds, the town can pursue state bonding and grant programs that require shovel-ready documentation. No construction timeline or funding source has been confirmed.

Historical Context: The WISP Fill Dispute

Council Member Waters and the council chair spent several minutes reconstructing the history of the original soil removal. The consensus account: a land acquisition committee, not the school building committee, was responsible for the decision to excavate and replace the contaminated fill rather than remediate it in place. The replacement material was hauled to Massachusetts for treatment at a cost estimated in the meeting at approximately one to one and a half million dollars. What was returned and placed under the future sports fields has produced 20 years of inadequate drainage. The council chair summed it up: "Regardless of what you're saying, you allowed the town — the school building committee is a representative of the town. When we built a school over here, everything that goes with that school, it's the town's. It's the town. So now the town's got to come to some resolution on it."

Adjournment

With no other business on the special meeting agenda, the council adjourned at 7:20 p.m. on a motion by Waters, seconded by DeProto.

Council Members Present: - James Demetriades — Member - Jamin DeProto — Member (arrived shortly after opening) - Brian Bonneau — Member - Jack Henehan — Member - Paula G. Luna — Member - Anne Hulick — Member - Al Waters — Member

Staff in Attendance: - John Harriman — Town Engineer (presented the engineering overview and staff recommendation) - Town Manager identified in transcript only as "Tony" — title confirmed from context; surname not in any supplied source - Staff member identified in transcript only as "Sharon" — role appears to be senior town staff, possibly a finance or administrative official; surname not in any supplied source - Staff member identified in transcript only as "Amanda" — administrative staff who managed the citizens' comment email and minutes

Board of Finance Members Present: - Mr. Ireland — identified as chair or presiding officer of the Board of Finance; full name not confirmed in supplied sources - Mr. Quigliano — seated in place of Mr. Maley per a motion at the start of the meeting; full name not in roster - Mr. Maley — absent from Board of Finance; replaced by Mr. Quigliano - Mr. Blanchett — Board of Finance member, identified by name from transcript - Mr. Waganowski — Board of Finance member, identified by name from transcript - Additional Board of Finance members referred to as "Steve," "Chris," and "Jamie" — surnames not in any supplied source

Outside Parties: - Ryan Chmielewski — licensed landscape architect, Weston and Sampson, Rocky Hill, Connecticut; lead designer for sports fields; retained to design WISP drainage options - Evan Andricos — Weston and Sampson team member, field measurements and soil sampling - Joe Perugini — civil engineer, Weston and Sampson, stormwater design

Public Commenters: - Joseph DaVincio — lifelong Cromwell resident, 35-year landscaping professional; submitted written comment read into the record - Mike Cannata — resident, 136 Nooksell Road, Cromwell; spoke in person - Jason LeBlanc — resident, 3 Cedar Drive, Cromwell; spoke in person; stated prior involvement running "chill soccer"

• Weston and Sampson — engineering and landscape architecture firm, Rocky Hill, Connecticut; retained by the town to study and design WISP field drainage solutions
• State of Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) — cited by Harriman as the regulatory authority that required removal of contaminated agricultural soil when the school was built
• State of Connecticut bonding and grant programs — referenced as a potential funding source for the project; officials stated projects of this type require shovel-ready design documentation to be eligible
• "Chill soccer" — a paid-to-play youth soccer organization identified by public commenters as a regular user of the WISP fields
• Bethany Lutheran Church — referenced by Council Member Waters in connection with a drainage brook on Leghorn Drive that he believed was not being maintained; not directly related to the WISP field drainage system under discussion
• January 20, 2026 presentation — the prior engineering presentation to the council, referenced as the baseline document; packet copies were distributed at this meeting
• ASTM standards — cited by Chmielewski as the performance standard governing sand-mix composition used in Option 1 and higher options
• Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) — described by Chmielewski as a document his firm would prepare as part of the detailed design, covering ongoing maintenance requirements