MINUTES
REGULAR
MEETING
WEDNESDA=
Y, FEBRUARY
16, 2005, 7:00 P.M.
PRESENT: = &nb= sp; Remo Ceniccola, Vice Chairman
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; John
Chipko
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Peter
Dzioba
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Anthony
Fusco
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Kevin
Killeen
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Karl Kuegler, Secretary
John Orsini
Robert Porter, Chairman
ABSENT: &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Doug Leach
OTHERS PRESENT: Charles Beliveau, Facilities Manager, Board of Education
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Larry Black, Fire Chief
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Paul Dominov, Kaestle Boos Associates
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Fred Khericha, Kaestle Boos Associates
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Rusty Malik, Kaestle Boos Associates
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Jeffery McElravy, Kaestle Boos Associates
1.&nb= sp; Convene Regular Meeting - 7:00 P.M.
Mr. Porter, Chairman, Called the Meeting to Order at 7:00 p.m.
2.&nb= sp; Roll Call
Mr. Porter, Chairman, executed the Roll Call.
Mr. Porter, Chairman, welcomed two returning members, Karl Kuegler and Tony Fus= co, and welcomed Peter Dzioba, a new member.
3. = Public Participation
&nbs= p; N= one
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 16, 2005
PAGE 2
&= nbsp; MOTION: (Mr. Orsini, sec. Mr. Chipko) to Add Agenda Item 3A, Election of Officers.
&= nbsp; Discussion: None<= /p>
&= nbsp; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
3A.&n=
bsp; Election
of Officers
&= nbsp; Mr. Porter turned the meeting over to Mr. Ceniccola, the Vice Chairman.
= M= OTION: (Mr. = Killeen, sec. Mr. Kuegler) to nominate Robert Porter for Chairman of the Public Buildings Committee.
&= nbsp; Discussion: None<= /p>
&= nbsp; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
&= nbsp; Mr. Ceniccola turned the meeting over to Mr. Porter, Chairman.
= M= OTION: (Mr. Orsini, sec. Mr. Killeen) to nominate Remo Ceniccola for Vice Chairman of t= he Public Buildings Committee.
&= nbsp; Discussion: None<= /p>
&= nbsp; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
= M= OTION: (Mr. = Killeen, sec. Mr. Orsini) to nominate Karl Kuegler for Secretary of the Public Build= ings Committee.
&= nbsp; Discussion: None<= /p>
&= nbsp; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 16, 2005
PAGE 3
4.&nb=
sp; Minutes
&=
nbsp; A. Regular
Meeting, January 19, 2005
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; MOTION: (Mr. =
Ceniccola,
sec. Mr. Kuegler) to Approve the Regular Meeting
Minutes dated January 19, 2005 as presented.
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Discussion: None<= o:p>
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; In
Favor: &=
nbsp; Mr.
Ceniccola, Mr. Chipko, Mr. Dzioba, Mr. Fusco, Mr. Killeen, Mr. Kuegler, Mr.
Porter
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Opposed: =
None
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Abstained: Mr. Orsini
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; MOTION
CARRIED (7-0-1)
&=
nbsp; B. =
Special
Meeting, February 3, 2005
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; MOTION: (Mr. =
Chipko,
sec. Mr. Fusco) to Approve the Special Meeting M=
inutes
dated February 3, 2005 as presented.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Discussion: Mr.
Fusco: Page 7, 4th from t=
he
bottom, I said "cause we have problems with John Trumbull". I'd like "cause" changed=
to
"because".
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; In
Favor: &=
nbsp; Mr.
Chipko, Mr. Dzioba, Mr. Fusco, Mr. Killeen, Mr. Kuegler, Mr. Orsini, Mr. Po=
rter
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Opposed: =
None
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Abstained: Mr.
Ceniccola
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; MOTION
CARRIED (7-0-1)
5.&nb=
sp; Correspondence
&= nbsp; None
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 16, 2005
PAGE 4
6.&nb=
sp; New
Business
=
;
1. =
St=
atus
Report (Mark Roming)
Mr.
Porter: We won't have anything on that unt=
il the
Spring.
= 1.&n= bsp; = ; Waiting to Close Out Project
= ; &n= bsp; = ; Mr. Porter: According to Dean the weather has = been a problem.
= 2.&n= bsp; = ; Discussion and Vote on Silver Petrucelli, Invoice #= 459, in the amount of $186 (attached)
= ; &n= bsp; = ; MOTION: (Mr. = Orsini, sec. Mr. Killeen) to Approve Payment to Silver Petrucelli, Invoice #459, in= the amount of $186.
&n= bsp; = ; = Discussion: None<= /p>
&n= bsp; = ; = MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
= 3.&n= bsp; = ; Discussion and Possible Vote on SilkTown Roofing, Application for Payment #6, in the amount of $1,596 (attached)
= ; &n= bsp; = ; MOTION: (Mr. = Ceniccola, sec. Mr. Chipko) to Approve Payment to SilkTown Roofing, Application for Payment #6, in the amount of $1,596.
&n= bsp; = ; = Discussion: None<= /p>
&n= bsp; = ; = MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
&=
nbsp; C. Fire
Station #1 Renovations
= 1.&n= bsp; = ; Presentation by Kaestle Boos Associates (attached)<= /p>
=
; &n=
bsp; =
; Jeffery McElravy, Project Manager,
Kaestle Boos Associates
&nb= sp; = M= r. McElravy: I just wanted to point out that the information we sent to you included the final cost estim= ate on the project from your consultant estimator.
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 16, 2005
PAGE 5
= ; &n= bsp; = ; We had spent a good deal of time working with the Fire Department to the goal = of making sure that we had a budget that was within the allocated amount of funds. A lot of that has been accomplished through the use of alternates. A lot of that information is (inau= dible) and I'm going to have Paul give a brief presentation about the kinds of alternates that in working with the Fire Department we have included and gi= ve you an opportunity to get into a dialogue about that.
=
; &n=
bsp; =
; I
think the pertinent sheet here is the Fire Department Study Project Budget =
from
C2E estimate pa=
ge
where we not only take the numbers from C2E we have based those upon our base bid removing the
alternate amounts and that included all of the project costs that we were a=
ware
of based on our original estimates from the study, modified by actual amoun=
ts
where we know those numbers, and at this point we have a total budget
deviation, we're to the good side of about $8,573, utilizing the alternates
that we had suggested and worked out with the Fire Department. At this point we are not looking f=
or
direction (inaudible) permission to go to bid yet. What we are looking for is some
= ; &n= bsp; = ; I do want to give a little bit of a talk about cost estimating. We have spent a lot of time in dia= logue with C2E over t= he last two months about their cost estimate and I want you to understand that= C2E very clearly states tha= t they are looking to estimate not at the low bid price, but their goal is to be in the middle of the pack, because they don't know how many bidders you're goi= ng to get. I will use a direct quot= e from John Kinney, of C2E, that the best value engineering is getting a good, competitive group of bidders, so you get 6, 7 bidders, you're going to do better, they anticipate they will do better than their numbers.&nb= sp; Having said that, we have got their information,= their budget information and have tried to craft alternates to make sure that our base bid is within the allocation of money that we are aware, that the Town= has for this project. If i= n fact we do get 6 or 7 or 8 bidders on this project and do perform better at bid = day, then there's a lot of these alternates that can be reconsidered for inclusi= on back in the project, but at this time we've identified the alternates with = the goal of getting us to that allocated amount in working with the Fire Depart= ment in what they felt was acceptable in terms of alternates.
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 16, 2005
PAGE 6
= ; &n= bsp; = ; One other statement I want to make about cost estimators, it is not an exact science. I= 'm sure, you're a permanent building committee, that there is often deviation = in real bid results from cost estimates. I know that when you start to go line by line through an estimate, f= or everything that you find that they may have included too much money for, th= ere is probably an equal number of line items that they've included too little money for, cause it is clearly not a cost estimate. One of the things that we went thr= ough in our dialogues with C2E over the last two months is the situation that because of the escalation th= at's going on with a lot of building materials now, we have seen all of the value engineering efforts that we made back at the design development phase essentially being negated in the estimate by increases that they perceive i= n the cost of construction and the cost of materials. I will say that C2E has stated that they ju= st recently at the beginning of the year updated all of their estimating datab= ases, so I think that there is a possibility that we saw a percentage increase in their estimating numbers that was not proportionate to the distance of time between the two estimates. Th= is is Jeff's opinion. I am absolute= ly not suggesting that you should ignore your estimator because that's the road to follow there, you need to be aware of what the e= stimator is giving you.
= ; &n= bsp; = ; I do want to make two other statements, and again these are not meant as an indictment of the estimate, just that you understand the variabilities that= go on in the estimating world. I= had stated to you back in the design development phase that we had done a proje= ct where we had received a professional cost estimator number that was $1,000,= 000 high. Interestingly enough th= at same project was a 24,300 square foot police facility, brand new construction on= a site where we had site work that encompassed around the existing Town Hall = building. That project for 24,000 square feet costs less than the estimate we have for the 12,000 square foot addition an= d modifications to your firehouse.
= ; &n= bsp; = ; At this point what I'm looking for is direction: How are we going to finish up the drawing? What alternates are = we going to include? Are we goin= g to go through the expense of doing duplicate sets of certain drawings in the s= et, so that we can have bid prices for, for instance a shingle roof versus a me= tal roof because the details are completely different, and that's where we are = at in this process? We anticipat= e that once we have direction from the Committee and we have consensus between the Committee and the Fire Department, that it will take us about 1 month to get the entire set wrapped up and ready for bid. But right now, based upon the value engineering effort and the communications we have with the Fire Department = and your estimator, this is the budget that we feel gets us to the allocation amount, and of course there are some sacrifices in terms of the things that have been identified as alternates.
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 16, 2005
PAGE 7
= ; &n= bsp; = ; One other statement that I will make, and then I'll let Paul tell you a little = bit more about the alternates, is that I have advised the Fire Department as we= 've gone through this exercise not to get too many alternates, and not to get t= oo small alternates in there, and so you'll see we've tried to keep the number= of alternates to a minimum and we've tried to keep the scope of those alternat= es high. I had experience 7, 8 y= ears ago of what happens when you put too many alternates in your package, and q= uite frankly the bidders just get angry and start throwing bogus numbers in the alternate results because of the excess work that you're putting there, so = you need to be as few alternates as possible and they've got to be big numbers.= With that I'd like to have Paul go through and talk about the nature of the alternates we've included and where we're at with the progress of the set.
= ; &n= bsp; = ; Mr. Porter: Okay, before you = go forward though, I think what we need to make clear is we're going to need s= ome time to sit and look at these and have a meeting such as we did with Swift,= so probably within the next month we'll have the . . . .
&nb= sp; = M= r. McElravy: Absolutely, what we're saying to you is here is where we are at, here's the process we've be= en through, we just need the direction of where we're going from here, and you= obviously can take the time that you feel is necessary to make that determination.
= ; &n= bsp; = ; Mr. Porter: Which we will do = and we'll do in conjunction with the Fire Department.
&nb= sp; = M= r. McElravy: Absolutely.
=
; &n=
bsp; =
; Paul Dominov, Kaestle Boos Associa=
tes
= ; &n= bsp; = ; Mr. Dominov: What I've done is I've printed two identical sets of drawings, so in conversations you may have with the Fire = Department, you're both looking at the same information. Let me just quic= kly go down the, we have 5 add alternates to the project currently and they're up = for discussion, but this is what we have currently.
= ; &n= bsp; = ; Mr. Porter: Are you looking a= t the one with the numbers or the detail?
&nb= sp; = M= r. Dominov: I'm looking at t= he second page of the packet that I handed out, which was a request for additi= onal service fee in the amount of $5,000 for the production of these add alterna= tes, Kaestle Boos.
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 16, 2005
PAGE 8
&nb=
sp; =
<=
u>Alternate
#1 - Add the Access Road from
=
; &n=
bsp; =
; Currently
there is an access road to
&nb=
sp; =
<=
u>Alternate
#2 - Add Sandblasting and Painting of the Existing
= ; &n= bsp; = ; On the building there is this exterior hose tower that has a metal stair syste= m within it that is in disrepair, and the thought is we'd like to sandblast and paint that component, but again it won't be in the base bid, it will be as an add alternate.
=
; &n=
bsp; =
; Alternate #3 - Add the Removal and
Replacement of Existing Spawling Brick in Limited Areas on the Exterior of =
the
Building
= ; &n= bsp; = ; Currently the building has some brick that's been failing over time. We've had our brick, sort of guru,= that we rely upon on some of our projects, he was out at the site, and his determination is that the brick is spawling. His thought is that when they buil= t the building back in 1951 or 53, they used moderate weathering brick in lieu of severe weathering brick, it was probably a budget issue back then, but over time it has decayed. It's not= all of the brick, actually it's not much on the main street elevation, it's mos= tly in the back on the north side towards that little garage area, but we've so= rt of identified in our documents the areas that could use repairing and replacing, but again we took that out of the base bid, it would be an add alternate currently. Let me a= dd that the brick expert's opinion is that it is unlikely to deteriorate much = further, it's sort of at the end of it's life cycle and it's not a structural issue,= it is cosmetic, but it's not likely to get much worse than it already is, but = it should be replaced if the funds are there to do that.
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 16, 2005
PAGE 9
=
; &n=
bsp; =
; Alternate #4 - Upgrade to a Standi=
ng
Seam Aluminum Roofing System in Lieu of an Asphalt Shingle Roofing System
= ; &n= bsp; = ; We actually started out as a metal roof and had always represented that through schematic design development, but at this point we're starting to realize t= hat maybe it's not affordable at this point, so we plan to go out to bid curren= tly with a shingle roof system in lieu of the metal roof, and as Jeff mentioned before, to us that means a lot because they are two completely different roofing systems, two completely different sets of details, and it's added w= ork, just so you're aware of it. T= hat's a big time issue for K.B.A. to deal with, relative to the rest of these it's probably the biggest item to tackle.
= ; &n= bsp; = ; Instead of doing a lot of alternates, we lumped a big gr= oup of finish items into one finish alternate.
=
; &n=
bsp; =
; Alternate #5 - Upgrade Finishes
Throughout the Facility Including:
= ; &n= bsp; = ; A. Add vinyl wall coverings off of spacious corridors and similar spaces in lieu of paint. And it should actually= say probably in lieu of epoxy paint, that's what our base bid would probably be= is epoxy paint and are affordable to upgrade to some of those, we're talking mostly = in the office spaces and sort of the business occupancies within the facility.=
= ; &n= bsp; = ; B. = Add wall tile in toilet rooms, locker rooms, and new apparatus bays.
= ; &n= bsp; = ; C. Add wall mirrors in fitness room. (Tha= t's a small item, but we have an entire wall that we usually put an entire wall o= f mirrors in a fitness room.)
= ; &n= bsp; = ; D. Add poured resin floor in new apparatus bay in the new lower garage in lieu of colored concrete hardener. We= would go out to bid currently showing a poured resin floor in the existing appara= tus bay. That has some cracking a= nd things, it's not a structural issue, but it does need some attention. As it stands right now the base bid would still deal with a poured resin floor in the existing apparatus bay, b= ut all the new construction would not be the poured resin, we would do a concr= ete hardener.
= ; &n= bsp; = ; That's it, that's where we are right now. And again, the Building Committee and the Fire Department have the s= ame documents, and K.B.A. would just like to get direction after some discussio= n, and it would take about a month to complete the documents once we had the clear direction to proceed.
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 16, 2005
PAGE 10
= ; &n= bsp; = ; Mr. McElravy: With that we'd certainly be willing to entertain any questions that you may have. At this point obviously you want s= ome time to look at the drawings on your own, so we would anticipate fielding s= ome more questions later as well.
&nb=
sp; =
M=
r.
Killeen: I do have some
questions concerning the request for additional services, and that is these
additional services, it's my understanding that originally there was an acc=
ess
road that was taken out as a result of the cost consideration of the job.
= ; &n= bsp; = ; Mr. McElravy: When we had don= e the study work we were not aware of the need to do a new access road. When we started the project we bec= ame aware of that. We endeavored to try= and include that in the project and very early on, back in the schematic design phase, we started talking about that right after our first estimate as an a= dded scope item that was affecting the budget from the study, and at that point = it was suggested that maybe some of the work for that road could be done using Town resources, and we had a dialogue about that and back in that phase it = was decided to let's do that as an alternate with the intent of using Town resources to accomplish a lot of the fill work if the budget doesn't allow = us to get away with that.
&nb= sp; = M= r. Killeen: Okay, so from a = fairly early stage you did realize that there would be an impact to the drawings produced based on that consideration?
= ; &n= bsp; = ; Mr. McElravy: That's correct.=
&nb= sp; = M= r. Killeen: And then the oth= er question I had is concerning the standing seam roof, originally it was goin= g to be and it was not going to be . . . . .
= ; &n= bsp; = ; Mr. McElravy: Yea, in the ori= ginal conceptual stuff that we had indicated back before the market played its numbers games on us, we had always presented this with a standing seam metal roof, and we've talked about this as a possible alternate in the past and t= hat the last estimate has elevated the dialogue to the necessity of, I think, making it a real alternate. F= rom our standpoint, unlike sandblasting and painting the stairs where it's simp= ly a note on the drawing, we put a circle on it and say sandblast, and paint, Alternate #3. This is an entire set of new details. In the low slope section, there's = a very low slope section of this roof that will need a membrane roofing system, and then we've got shingle roofing, all of the eave details need to be altered,= we need to use a nailable deck system that has a ventilation, so you ventilate= the OSB (inaudible) surface, and so basically it's all about all of those added= details that we have to draw, so bidding this as an alternate we'll end up doing two sets of roof drawings. Now obviously if you choose not to do an alternate, that goes away, but in our dialogue with the Fire Department they have expressed= to us a desire to keep that as an alternate.
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 16, 2005
PAGE 11
&nb= sp; = M= r. Kuegler: You were noting = that the design cost is basically the same for doing the standing seam as doing = an asphalt shingle roof?
= ; &n= bsp; = ; Mr. McElravy: We'll spend alm= ost as much time doing the details for either system, yes. So if there was no alternate, there would be no added service. The truth of the matter is yea, we have detailed some metal standing seam roof details already, but we can obviously work that issue.
&nb= sp; = M= r. Porter: What's the cost o= f the shingled roof that you anticipate? Is that broken down in the . . . . .
= ; &n= bsp; = ; Mr. Dominov: The upgrade to t= he roofing system is $40,000. The upgrade to the metal is $40,000.
= ; &n= bsp; = ; Mr. Porter: Right, we saw the $40,000, what's the base?
&nb= sp; = M= r. Dominov: The estimate is included in your packet as well, just as a reference.
&nb= sp; = M= r. McElravy: The estimate was based on a metal roof and then we got a price back for the change to asphal= t. I do not have that number. When we had submitted the set for pricing by the estimator, the number was based upon a metal roof and we gav= e a description to them about what we would do for the alternate, and they gave= us the delta in terms of, you know, that you would have $40,000 if you switche= d to an asphalt shingle roof using the . . . .
= ; &n= bsp; = ; Mr. Porter: So there is no ba= se amount, it just says you'll save $40,000 if you . . . . .
&nb= sp; = M= r. McElravy: Yea, I mean we = can certainly ask the estimator to provide that amount.
= ; &n= bsp; = ; Mr. Ceniccola: You indicated = that you need a ventilated deck with the standing seam.
&nb= sp; = M= r. McElravy: No, with the as= phalt shingle. Yea, right now we don't have the ventilated nailing surface with the metal.
= ; &n= bsp; = ; Mr. Ceniccola: I misunderstood then, thanks.
&nb=
sp; =
M=
r.
Porter: Any questions?
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 16, 2005
PAGE 12
&nb= sp; = M= r. McElravy: Yes, and we hav= e been through this estimate with the estimator, Paul and I did a session with the= m, and of course the Fire Department has gone through review and asked a numbe= r of questions. Again, the estimat= or business is doing estimates. = We were focusing on identifying things that were in scope and were not in scope, that may have been included in the estimate or = not included in the estimate. I'v= e been down the road enough that you start planning, I = think your number is too, your number is too, is not a worthwhile exercise.
= ; &n= bsp; = ; Mr. Porter: The bids provide = the true numbers.
&nb= sp; = M= r. McElravy: Yes, and I have= to agree that a good bidding climate is the best value engineering tool.
= ; &n= bsp; = ; Mr. Porter: We'll be going to= bid in prime time.
&nb= sp; = M= r. McElravy: Yes, sir.
= ; &n= bsp; = ; Mr. Porter: Any other questions? If not, we'll set = up a meeting amongst ourselves to go over this.= The last thing is are we looking at the Naugatuck Valley Development Corporation items also in the back of the packet you gave us, for the magnet school?
&nb= sp; = M= r. Dominov: That may have be= en attached.
= ; &n= bsp; = ; Mr. Porter: Yea, it was attac= hed to the packet. I don’t thi= nk we need those.
&nb= sp; = M= r. McElravy: That was our ba= d.
&nb= sp; = M= r. Dominov: Towards the end = there is some additional correspondence with the Fire Department with some unit heaters in lieu of some radiant heaters in the apparatus bay and some court= yard sketches, (inaudible) being the very front of the building there's a limited landscape area and the thought is that we would create a small little space possibly with some donated pavers, flagpole, some plantings, so that's just some correspondence that you have not been a part of, but the Fire Departme= nt and K.B.A. has been working on.
= ; &n= bsp; = ; Mr. Porter: Any comments from= the Fire Department?
&nb= sp; = C= hief Black: No.
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 16, 2005
PAGE 13
&nb= sp; = M= r. McElravy: One other comme= nt, I will state that we have been seeking to get in contact with Dr. Granville a= t Brooks Laboratories. I had been in c= ontact with him about a month and a half ago advising him of our anticipated sched= ule and had not heard anything from him since, so Paul has got a couple of phone calls in and we're waiting to hear back.&n= bsp; We want to make sure that we're coordinated with having their package ready at the same time that we are.
= ; &n= bsp; = ; Mr. Porter: Thank you.
2.&n= bsp; = ; Discussion and Vote on Aaron Environmental, Invoice= #4901, in the amount of $5,595 (attached)
Mr. Porter: At the request of the Fire Departm= ent I'm going to put that on hold until March.
3.&n= bsp; = ; Discussion and Vote on Crest Graphics, Invoice #171= 38, in the amount of $1,166.81 (attached)
&nb=
sp; =
M=
r.
Porter: This is the invoi=
ce
that originally went to the Board of Education and got turned back to us.
= ; &n= bsp; = ; MOTION: (Mr. Kuegler, sec. Mr. Fusco) to Approve Payment to Crest Graphics, Invoice #171= 38, in the amount of $1,166.81.
&n= bsp; = ; = Discussion: None<= /p>
&n= bsp; = ; = MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
(Tape #1, Side A Ended - May have Missed Some.)
&=
nbsp; D.
= 1.&n= bsp; = ; Presentation by Kaestle Boos Associates (attached)<= /p>
&n=
bsp; =
; =
Rusty Malik, Project Manager, Kaes=
tle
Boos Associates
&n= bsp; = ; = Mr. Malik: Did everybody get the report dated February 9th?
= ; &n= bsp; = ; Mr. Porter: Yes, it's in the packet.
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 16, 2005
PAGE 14
=
; &n=
bsp; =
; Mr.
Malik: Just an update.
= ; &n= bsp; = ; While we were at the State we did have some discussion about some documentation t= hat needs to be filed. I've alrea= dy made arrangements with Todd to meet with him next Tuesday. This is just computerized informat= ion that updates budgets, etc. that the computer is at the Board of Education, = in the Business Manager's office, and they just have to provide updated information. I want to make sure that all this stuff is current because you don't want o go down the road and then find that all of a sudden you're mis= sing a piece or the numbers are different from what had been approved, especially from the reimbursement perspective, so we will go through that, make sure t= hat the correct numbers are entered into the computer, I shouldn't say correcte= d, updated numbers, because I believe what happened at the time that those dol= lars were updated, the final value of the referendum amount had not been ascertained. It went from 26 = and change up to 27,044 and that's one of the corrections that we need to make.=
= ; &n= bsp; = ; We've also been through the Zoning Commission and have been approved, so our next step, we made a complete submitted to, I'm sorry the Conservation Commission has approved it and our next step is to submit, we got some comments back f= rom the Zoning Commission. All of= those changes, etc. have been made. A final set of drawings is being submitted to them Friday where we get anothe= r opportunity to review them, and then on March 2nd we're up for approval before Zoning itself.
= ; &n= bsp; = ; As we mentioned at the last meeting we have the R.F.P. for the construction manager. I believe Meredith h= as that information.
= ; &n= bsp; = ; Mr. Porter: The Committee has= it this evening.
&nb= sp; = M= r. Malik: The comments that = you'd made were made, after I spoke to you, you're right, some of those changes n= eed to be made, they were made and emailed to Meredith this afternoon.
=
; &n=
bsp; =
; Mr. Porter: That's what we have this evening.<=
/p>
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 16, 2005
PAGE 15
&nb= sp; = M= r. Malik: Other than that, I= just have some paperwork that I'm going to give Charlie because when I spoke to = Todd this afternoon he said he had two other meetings that he was trying to jugg= le between and so Charlie would take the information that I had for him for signatures, etc. I do have a = set of drawings, I didn’t bring it out of the car= cause I wasn't sure where you wanted it, which is the State set that we submitted. Should I get that = over to Todd, or where should that go?
= ; &n= bsp; = ; Mr. Porter: I'd like to have = it at the Annex. Is there just one = set?
= ; &n= bsp; = ; Mr. Malik: it's one set about= twice that size with the specs in it.
= ; &n= bsp; = ; Mr. Porter: Charlie, how abou= t if we leave it at the Annex? Is = that all right with you, cause there's no place at the Munson House to set those things up and look at them? K= arl and Rey and John want to look at them.&nbs= p; While you're there, maybe we should collect some of the older sets t= hat are not relevant and you can take them back to your office, cause they're going to get confused.
= ; &n= bsp; = ; Mr. Malik: Actually in the re= port we had also said that we were waiting, one of the modification requests we = were still waiting on, we received all of the modifications and they've all been handed over to the State.
2. &=
nbsp; Correspondence
from Public Buildings Committee to Kaestle Boos Associates, Re: Comments on Design Development Dra=
wings,
dated January 25, 2005.
=
Mr.
Porter: We already saw this.
3. =
; Correspondence
from R. Porter to T. LoFrese, Re:
Set up Joint Meeting with the Board Of Education's Facilities Commit=
tee
to Review Finishes at Swift, dated January 20, 2005
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Porter: That's going to be in a
couple of weeks. Todd said it=
will
be at least two weeks down the road, so that's still open.
=
4. =
Correspondence
from R. Porter to T. LoFrese, Re:
Proceed with Testing and Related Work, Buried Oil Tank at Swift, dat=
ed
January 20, 2005 (attached)
=
=
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Porter: Still On-going.
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 16, 2005
PAGE 16
=
5. =
Correspondence
from Kaestle Boos Associates to Public Buildings Committee, Re: Flooring in New Gymnasium, dated J=
anuary
14, 2005 (attached)
=
Mr.
Porter: I understand that the =
Board
of Education's Facilities Committee has strongly requested a wood floor be =
in
that gym, but in looking at the comments made at the public traffic that's
going to be in there, and the fact that it's a $3,500 to $4,000 fee cost ea=
ch
year to refinish those floors, my opinion, I don't know what the rest of th=
e Buildings
Committee thinks, but I think the poured rubber floor is a much better way =
to
go with that, and I'd like to see if we could do the wood floor as an add
alternate.
=
Mr.
Malik: I believe tha=
t's
the way it's in the package that went to the State, the wood floor as an add.
=
=
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Porter: Comments from the=
rest
of the Committee?
Mr.
Ceniccola: I agree.
=
Mr.
Kuegler: I agree.
=
Mr.
Killeen: I'm in agreement with =
that
as well. The only recommendat=
ion I
would have is perhaps finding some locations where people who are interested
could look at the rubber floor.
=
= &= nbsp; Mr. Porter: Right here, J.T.<= o:p>
=
=
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Killeen: Is that the type=
of
floor that's in here, the same thing?
=
=
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Malik: Yes, the poured ru=
bber.
=
Mr.
Porter: I think it's at Polk t=
oo.
=
Mr.
Killeen: Ca=
use
I've seen a couple different yes, and this is like . . . . .
Mr.
Malik: There are some lay down
type, but we don't like to go there.
The poured you get a much better surface and it's consistent, no sea=
ms
coming up, even though the other ones the seams are . . . . they
don't deteriorate as you would on a (inaudible) let's say.
=
=
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Porter: From the Buildings
Committee side, I think we're looking at the maintenance issue, that's where
I'd like to leave that.
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 16, 2005
PAGE 17
=
=
6. =
Correspondence
from Board Of Education to Kaestle Boos Associates, Re: Swift Audio Visual Needs, dated Ja=
nuary
27, 2005 (attached)
=
=
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Porter: You've had that m=
eeting
or you have their comments?
=
Mr.
Malik: Yes.
=
7. =
Correspondence
from M.T. Group Materials Testing to Public Buildings Committee, Re: For Reference Purposes, dated Janu=
ary
18, 2005 (attached)
=
Mr.
Porter: This is for information
purposes only, so we're just going to file that.
=
=
8. =
Discussion
and Vote on Kaestle Boos Associates, Invoice #6, in the amount of $179,730.=
90
(attached)
=
&=
nbsp; MOTION: (Mr. =
Kuegler,
sec. Mr. Orsini) to Approve Payment to Kaestle Boos Associates, Invo=
ice
#6, in the amount of $179,730.90.
=
= &= nbsp; Discussion: None<= o:p>
=
&=
nbsp; In
Favor: &=
nbsp; Mr.
Ceniccola, Mr. Dzioba, Mr. Fusco, Mr. Killeen, Mr. Kuegler, Mr. Orsini, Mr.
Porter
=
=
&=
nbsp; Opposed: =
None
=
=
&=
nbsp; Abstained: Mr.
Chipko
=
=
&=
nbsp; MOTION
CARRIED (7-0-1)
=
=
9. =
Discussion
and Vote on Brooks Laboratories, Invoice #2067, in the amount of $4,450
(attached)
=
&=
nbsp; MOTION: (Mr.
Orsini, sec. Mr. Fusco) to Approve Payment to Brooks Laboratories, Invoice
#2067, in the amount of $4,450.
&= nbsp; Discussion: None<= o:p>
&=
nbsp; MOTION
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 16, 2005
PAGE 18
=
=
10. Discu=
ssion
and Vote on Brooks Laboratories, Invoice #2154, in the amount of $2,290
(attached)
=
&=
nbsp; MOTION: (Mr.
Ceniccola, sec. Mr. Killeen) to Approve Payment to Brooks Laboratories, Inv=
oice
#2154, in the amount of $2,290.
&= nbsp; Discussion: None<= o:p>
&=
nbsp; MOTION
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
=
=
11. Discu=
ssion
and Vote on Construction Cost Engineering of Boston, Invoice #509, in the
amount of $6,900 (attached)
=
&=
nbsp; MOTION: (Mr.
Kuegler, sec. Mr. Fusco) to Approve Payment to Cost Construction Engineerin=
g of
Boston, Invoice #509, in the amount of $6,900.
&= nbsp; Discussion: None<= o:p>
&=
nbsp; MOTION
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
=
=
12. Discu=
ssion
and Vote on K.B.A., Invoice #1-04020.01, in the amount of $10,737.50 (attac=
hed)
=
&=
nbsp; MOTION: (Mr.
Kuegler, sec. Mr. Orsini) to Approve Payment to K.B.A., Invoice
#1-04020.01, in the amount of $10,737.50.
=
= &= nbsp; Discussion: None<= o:p>
=
&=
nbsp; In
Favor: &=
nbsp; Mr.
Ceniccola, Mr. Dzioba, Mr. Fusco, Mr. Killeen, Mr. Kuegler, Mr. Orsini, Mr.
Porter
=
=
&=
nbsp; Opposed: =
None
=
=
&=
nbsp; Abstained: Mr.
Chipko
=
=
&=
nbsp; MOTION
CARRIED (7-0-1)
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 16, 2005
PAGE 19
=
=
13. Discu=
ssion
and Vote on K.B.A., Invoice #1-04020.02, in the amount of $2,850 (attached)=
&=
nbsp; MOTION: (Mr.
Orsini, sec. Mr. Fusco) to Approve Payment to K.B.A., Invoice
#1-04020.02, in the amount of $2,850.
=
= &= nbsp; Discussion: None<= o:p>
=
&=
nbsp; In
Favor: &=
nbsp; Mr.
Ceniccola, Mr. Dzioba, Mr. Fusco, Mr. Killeen, Mr. Kuegler, Mr. Orsini, Mr.
Porter
=
=
&=
nbsp; Opposed: =
None
=
=
&=
nbsp; Abstained: Mr.
Chipko
=
=
&=
nbsp; MOTION
CARRIED (7-0-1)
=
MOTION: (Mr.
Ceniccola, sec. Mr. Killeen) to Add Agenda Item 6D14, Request for
Qualifications for Construction Manager for
= Discussion: None<= o:p>
=
=
MOTION
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
=
14. Reque=
st for
Qualifications for Construction Manager for
= ; &n= bsp; = ; Mr. Porter: This is the docum= ent that you sent to myself and Meredith today, and = this covers the items that we discussed at our Special Meeting in regards to the construction management. Ther= e is a date in here that might be off, but basically this is what will be sent out= for the qualifications.
&n= bsp; = ; = Mr. Ceniccola: When is this going out?
= ; &n= bsp; = ; Mr. Porter: If it's approved tonight it will go out tomorrow. I think we need to change the date of when they'll be accepted back. Right now it's Wednesday, February = 23rd.
= ; &n= bsp; = ; Mr. Malik: Again, that date is completely up = to . . . . .
= ; &n= bsp; = ; Mr. Porter: What's the timeframe we need to . = . . . . .
= ; &n= bsp; = ; Mr. Malik: Well the sooner we can get it back= the better off we are.
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 16, 2005
PAGE 20
= ; &n= bsp; = ; Mr. Porter: The following day= would work better.
= ; &n= bsp; = ; Mr. Malik: That would be fine. If that's the = case . . . . .
= ; &n= bsp; = ; Mr. Porter: It says it's due back at 4:00, it would be Thursday, February 24th.
= ; &n= bsp; = ; Mr. Malik That would be fi= ne.
&nb= sp; = &nb= sp; Mr. Porter: That date might have to move a lit= tle bit.
= ; &n= bsp; = ; Mr. Malik: Because you're goi= ng to a select group, you know you're picking the group and then you're sending i= t to them, a lot of these people have been calling and keeping track of it, they know it's coming out and certainly because they're not waiting to get it, they'll be, most of the information in there is fairly easy for them to assemble, at least for the first round. It’s the second round which is where we're really going to ask them to look at this project and the information that is required with that.
= ; &n= bsp; = ; Mr. Ceniccola: So are you saying that if it went = out tomorrow, then the end of next week would be plenty of time to get it back?
= ; &n= bsp; = ; Mr. Malik: I'm sure they'll have a different opinion depending on, I do realize that next week is February break and some people are taking time off, but I suggest that if people come back and say = they can't meet it, I know we've received R.F.Q.'s and that type sort of timefra= me (inaudible) timeframe to turn it around it's a fairly basic information that we're being requested and they're able to provide it. I'd rather get them on as soon as possible and not just wait.
= ; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Mr. Killeen: So your recommendation is to l= eave it as it is?
= ; &n= bsp; = ; Mr. Malik: Changing it from t= he 23rd to the 24th is not a problem, I think we can do that, but if you were saying let's move it out another week or two, I'd like to have them on as s= oon as we can because the State, the drawings coming back to us.
= ; &n= bsp; = ; Mr. Porter: Why don't we take= a vote to send this out with a return date of the 24th?
= ; MOTION: (Mr. = Ceniccola, sec. Mr. Fusco) to Send the Request for Information Out with a Return Date = of February 24,2005.
= ; Discussion: None<= /p>
= ; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 16, 2005
PAGE 21
Mr. Porter: Charlie, do you h= ave any comments on any of this stuff? I didn’t mean to ignore you.
Mr. Beliveau: That's fine.
Mr. Porter: Thanks Rusty.
Mr. Malik: I do have, I have = been asked by Meredith to put some information together for the insurance agent = for the project in terms of the insurance information, so I was just going to g= ive that to Charlie and see if he could drop it off.
=
Mr. Porter: You can give it to
<=
/span>E. =
&n= bsp; 1. = Status Report
&n=
bsp; =
; Mr.
Porter: Still on-going.
<=
/span>F. =
Town
Hall &n=
bsp; 1. =
Status
Report =
; &n=
bsp; =
; Mr. Porter: In the packet you received a copy =
of the
R.F.P. for architectural services for Heminway, and what this is is the Town
Council charged Meredith with putting an R.F.P. out to do a special studies
needs for Heminway School for Town offices. It includes the offices that are a=
nticipated
being in there. Part of that =
R.F.P.
is also to see if the Board of Education facilities can be brought into that
building and do it as one project.
That's pretty much the crux of it.&=
nbsp;
There is an anticipated timetable to send it out. It looks like they're anticipating
sending it out by the 18th if we approve it tonight, a pre-bid on February
24th, a mandatory walk through of the facility, the proposal to be due March
11th, and reviewed by the P.B.C. on the 16th, which is the Regular March Me=
eting,
and completion of study by July 8th.
The Town Council asked her to put the R.F.P. out=
,
it's officially coming to us next Tuesday, the 22nd. With that said, this is the crux o=
f the
R.F.P.'s for professional qualifications.&=
nbsp;
Any comments or discussion? =
; &n=
bsp; =
; MOTION: (Mr.
Chipko, sec. Mr. Killeen) to accept the R.F.P and send it out. =
; &n=
bsp; =
; Discussion: None<=
/p>
=
; &n=
bsp; =
; MOTION
PASSED UNANIOUSLY REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 16, 2005 PAGE 22 =
; G. Dean
Petrucelli is working with Accoustics, Inc. and Chuck Frigon to close out S=
wift
Project (ceiling tiles and wall to ceiling) =
; &n=
bsp; Mr. Porter: Still working with Accoustics. 7.&nb=
sp; New
Business &=
nbsp; A. &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; 1. =
Status
Report &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr. Porter: That's what we just talked about.<=
/p>
8.&nb=
sp; Financial
Reports - F. Nardelli &=
nbsp; A. All
Projects (not available) =
; &n=
bsp; Mr.
Porter: In your packet, t=
his is
the second time you received it, there's a breakdown for each of the projec=
ts
done by the Finance Department and what was added, if you look at the Polk =
School
Roof Project, the first, on Page 1, this is Polk School Roof Replacement, P=
age
2 and Page 3 of this report, it should be on, go back one page, and one thi=
rd
of the way down it says project total appropriated - I had them add that so=
we
know what the amount approved at referendum was, and if there were any moni=
es
added, i.e., the high school track had like $38,000 added. Each month you will receive a copy =
of
this. 9.&nb=
sp; Anticipated
Executive Session &=
nbsp; A. John
Trumbull &=
nbsp; B. =
Fire
Station Renovations =
M=
OTION: (Mr.
Killeen, sec. Ceniccola) to enter into Executive Session at 7:53 p.m. to di=
scuss
the =
D=
iscussion: None<=
/p>
=
M=
OTION
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY =
M=
r.
Porter, Chairman, Reconvened the Regular Meeting at 8:22 p.m. 10.&n=
bsp; For Your Information &=
nbsp; None REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 16, 2005 PAGE 23 11.&n=
bsp; Adjournment MOTION: (Mr.
Orsini, sec. Mr. Ceniccola) to Adjourn the Regular Meeting at 8:23 p.m. Discussion: None MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY Regular Meeting Adjourned at 8:23 p.m.=
Respectfully
submitted, Robert
Porter, Chairman Watertown
Public Buildings Committee Approved: _____________________________=
__ Lynn
M. LaForme, Clerk