MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING
TOWN HALL ANNEX
CONFERENCE ROOM
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 2, 2006, 5:00 P.=
M.
PRESENT: =
; &n=
bsp; Brian
Bellagamba
= ; &n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; 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; Karl Kuegler, Secretary
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Robert LeBlanc
ABSENT: &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Robert Porter, Chairman
OTHERS PRESENT: Fred Khericha, Kaestle Boos Associates
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Todd LoFrese, Board of Education, Operations Director
1.&nb= sp; Convene Informational Meeting - 5:00 P.M.
Mr. Ceniccola, Vice Chairman, Called the Informational Meeting to Order at 7:02 p.m.
2.&nb= sp; Roll Call
Mr. Ceniccola, Vice Chairman, executed the Roll Call.
3. = Public Participation
&= nbsp; None
4. =
Interview
Joseph Calabrese, PC
&= nbsp; Mr. Ceniccola: I understand t= hat you received a letter from Bob Porter with a list of questions that we would like to have you address.
SPECIAL MEETING
AUGUST 2, 2006
PAGE 2
&=
nbsp; Joseph Calabrese
1.&nbs=
p; Who
is performing the roofing inspection and what are their qualifications?
=
Mr. Calabrese: Our intent was to use an expert from
either Dayhill Restoration out of
=
; 2. =
What
procedure will be used to perform the roof inspections, i.e., test cores, t=
est
cuts?
= Mr. Calabrese: The cuts of supporting sheathin= g and other members and/or moisture control reading, depending on existing condit= ions will be used. We understand t= he Town will provide the demo services, at our direction, to cut masonry and w= ood.
=
; 3. =
How
will you determine the extent of the moisture in the roof structure?
= Mr. Calabrese: Samples (inaudible) supporting = structure which will again be extracted by the Town at our direction, it will be test= ed by a certified lab, for moisture content for the ap0propriate STM testing method.
= Mr. Ceniccola: Any particular lab that you use?
= Mr. Calabrese: Probably Materials Testing, more t= han likely.
=
; 4. =
How
will you determine the extent of the moisture in the masonry walls?
= Mr. Calabrese: Again, same approach, samples w= ould expect to be saw cut by the Town, we'll secure the samples and deliver them= to a testing lab for testing for ASTM 67, the moisture count.
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. Ceniccola: Same lab?
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. Calabrese: Yea, I can say= with just about certainty it will be Materials Testing, if not, it will be a lab= of equivalent accreditation.
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. LeBlanc: Internal masonry= too?
= Mr. Calabrese: Bearing wall, structure.
= ; Mr. LeBlanc: Well I mean lolli column, and there's one wall down in the cellar that has 3 rows of brick th= at have completely deteriorated.
SPECIAL MEETING
AUGUST 2, 2006
PAGE 3
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. Calabrese: Yea, anywhere = where we suspect moisture deterioration.
=
; 5. =
What
types of tests will you implement for investigating the condition of the
masonry both interior and exterior?
= Mr. Calabrese: Again, same thing, except we'll conduct compressed strength tests per ASTM C67 again.
=
; 6. =
How
will the wood framing which bears on the masonry walls be investigated for
possible rot?
= Mr. Calabrese: Dry rot will be tested for by (inaudible) with various instruments including drills if necessary, dependi= ng on access.
=
; 7. =
Will
the presence of mold and mildew in the exterior walls be investigated as ar=
t of
this study?
= Mr. Calabrese: The presence of mold and mildew= is encountered or suspected will be duly noted, how4ever we do not include a complete mold and mildew inspection in this scope (inaudible) called for in= the RFP.
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. Ceniccola; I think the inten= t was to just go and notify the owner.
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. Calabrese: Right, and then possibly advise them to do air sampling with actual mold contamination testing. But certainly if we encounter it, it will be duly noted.
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. Cennicola: So you would n= otify (inaudible) if you suspect it or (inaudible)?
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. Calabrese: Right.
=
; 8. =
Do
you think the conditions concealed by interior wall sheathing will be requi=
red
to be exposed for your investigation?
= Mr. Calabrese: Some sheathing may have to be r= emoved in certain areas depending on what we find, so it's a possibility.
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. LeBlanc: How about the ce= llar floor in the basement, will you have to remove the flooring to see the condition of the slate itself?
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. Calabrese: As far as I know that was not in the RFP.
SPECIAL MEETING
AUGUST 2, 2006
PAGE 4
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. Ceniccola: Bob, I donR= 17;t' think that was probably (inaudible) concern, we're more worried about the bearing walls and the structural support, cause the floor slab is just sitt= ing on dirt anyway, if it's cracked they'd have to (inaudible) but that's not a= big (inaudible).
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. LeBlanc: The only concern= that I had was that there are 5 lolli columns made out of brick and there are 4 lolli columns out of 4 x 4's and I just wondered if we should be concerned = with those wooden lolli columns, the condition of the floor?
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. Ceniccola: If Joe is goin= g to be checking the joist that are sitting on the bearing walls (inaudible) do a sample of one of the wood posts where it's sitting on the concrete, just to make sure it's not (inaudible) cause he's going to be doing it anyway, the = lab is going to be there, utilized so that shouldn't be a big deal.
=
; 9. =
How
many meetings do your fees cover?
= Mr. Calabrese: Strictly speaking it covers the= one meeting and presentation to the Board, but we're certainly going to be available for informal discussions. I would expect to have communication for instance, if we see a serio= us problem, whether John Chipko or some other designated person the Buildings Committee as we're conducting the study.&n= bsp; If there needs to be an additional, informal meeting, we don't have a problem with that.
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. Ceniccola: Bob Porter wil= l be the Board's contact.
&= nbsp; Mr. LeBlanc: We have to provide some kind o= f a lift of the outside work, how about for the inside work, the second floor t= hat has a very high ceiling, do we have to provide some type of lift for you for that too?
&= nbsp; Mr. Calabrese: Yes, we're assuming you'd have= a lift of some sort available.
&= nbsp; Mr. Chipko: There's a (inaudible) up there if I remember correctly, they couldn’t have meetings up there anymore beca= use . . . . .
&= nbsp; Mr. LeBlanc: No, it's a conde= mned floor, that's the reason I brought up this question.
&= nbsp; Many people talking at once; (inaudible).
&= nbsp; Mr. Calabrese: Put planks down, whatever.
&= nbsp; Mr. Kuegler: The reason why we weren't using the upper level is because of degrees, we only had a certain = amount of egress, I don't think it was the structural strength.
SPECIAL MEETING
AUGUST 2, 2006
PAGE 5
&= nbsp; Mr. Ceniccola: I thought I had heard a lot ti= me ago that some studies said the floor couldn't support (inaudible).
&= nbsp; Mr. Kuegler: They’ve got tons of paper files up there.
&= nbsp; Mr. LeBlanc: I think regardle= ss of whether we agree on whether it was condemned, we still have to get some kin= d of a material for these people to inspect those roof rafte= rs, that was my concern.
&= nbsp; Mr. Ceniccola: Yea (inaudible= ).
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Calabrese: It could be
&= nbsp; Mr. Ceniccola: Yea, something that you could take apart, bring up there, dismantle.
&= nbsp; Mr. LeBlanc: On Mr. Calabrese= 's approach and timeframe it says moment connections, is that movement connections?
&= nbsp; Mr. Calabrese: No, there is such a thing as a moment connection, however we probably won't enc= ounter it in this building. Had ther= e been some steel framing there could be a moment connection. It's an engineering term. Maybe I'll let John explain it.
&= nbsp; Mr. LeBlanc: In his leisure, = he doesn't have to explain it now.
&= nbsp; Mr. Calabrese: I doubt we'll encounter it, this i= s just standard language that we use typically in proposals, but there is such a thing.
&= nbsp; Mr. Chipko: If you were given= the go ahead, how soon could you start?
&= nbsp; Mr. Calabrese: Right away. I mean if we were given the go ahe= ad this week, we'd start as soon as possible.
&= nbsp; Mr. Fusco: How many of these = type buildings have you done in the past?
&= nbsp; Mr. Calabrese: A lot. Over the last 26 years . . . major structures. Three of them we referred to in th= e RFP.
&= nbsp; Mr. Fusco: Have you done slate roofs?
&= nbsp; Mr. Calabrese: Yes. We've always called in, were not e= xperts in slate roof construction, we know how to put them together, we know what = the fasteners look like, but it takes a specialist to get up on that roof and actually do a thorough investigation, look at sampling of the fasteners, and Dayhill is one of Connecticut's leading (inaudible).
SPECIAL MEETING
AUGUST 2, 2006
PAGE 6
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Fusco:
&= nbsp; Mr. Calabrese: Yes, either them or Dayhill, depending on who is available at the time.
&= nbsp; Mr. Chipko: Now those fees are included in the fees (Inaudible)?
&= nbsp; Mr. Calabrese: Yes, it's all included.
&= nbsp; Mr. Ceniccola: So you feel comfortable that o= nce we give you the go ahead to begin the project, that= gives you plenty of time to (inaudible)?
&= nbsp; Mr. Calabrese: yes, I mean it= 's a very simply structure, there's not much to it. We're either going to find problem= s with the wood framing or not, and the same thing with the beating, so there's not much to it.
&= nbsp; Mr. Chipko: Water is getting = into some of those walls and they haven't been repointed in many years and if we= 've got damage due to freeze/thaw (inaudible).= The interior (inaudible) that Bob is talking about, you've seen it a million times, where they used to us the cheap brick on the inside and the = more sturdy brook on the outside, well some of the col= umn appears to be flaking. That w= ould have to be (inaudible)>
&= nbsp; Mr. Calabrese: Right, I mean = some of them may be visual, they may be such poor condition that we don't even n= eed to call the lab, but we'll use discretion.= The only other suggestion I have is that we can shave that fee by $2= ,000 if you want to lower the limit of professional liability. I'll just give you an example, the $2,000,000 I would think is steep for this project, we'= re doing $63,000,000 for the State right now with $1,000,000 of professional l= iability. It doesn't matter to us, we can ge= t the additional, but I just don't see the need for it, I think it's overkill for an investigative study.
&= nbsp; Mr. Ceniccola: (Inaudible.) We can have that checked with the = Town Attorney.
&= nbsp; Mr. Fusco: If anything has to= be taken apart, let's say a wall to check into it, do you put it back again?
&= nbsp; Mr. Calabrese: No, the town, on the walk thro= ugh they stated that the Town would take care of the selective demolition and replacement.
&= nbsp; Mr. Bellagamba: Do you take a sample of each side, cause of the sun and weather hitting it in certain directions?
&= nbsp; Mr. Calabrese: We'll do a visual and make an assessment as to which areas might have to be physically sampled, so it wouldn't necessarily depend on the exposure and direction, it would depend = more on the visual inspection.
SPECIAL MEETING
AUGUST 2, 2006
PAGE 7
&= nbsp; Mr. Bellagamba: I assume some brooks get more weather than other sections of the building (inaudible).
&= nbsp; Mr. Calabrese: If it's necessary.
&= nbsp; Mr. Ceniccola: Any further qu4estions? If there are none, thank you Joe.<= /p>
&= nbsp; Mr. Ceniccola, Vice Chairman, called a Recess at 7:15 p.m.
&= nbsp; Mr. Ceniccola, Vice Chairman, Reconvened the Special Meeting at 7:20 p.m.
5.&nb=
sp; Interview
Fuss & O'Neill
&= nbsp; Mr. Ceniccola: Introduce yourselves, please.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> On the 25th a letter was mailed to= you with a list of questions that we would like to have addressed.
&=
nbsp; Keith
Bowman
&=
nbsp; Stewart
Harris
&=
nbsp; Bruce
Darling
=
; 1. =
Test
cuts and cores in the roof - who performs them, and who makes the temporary
repairs at these locations?
= Mr. Bowman: BPD Roofing, our roofing consultan= t will actually perform the cuts and any repairs as necessary. If there are any other questions on roofing, Bruce can answer them.
= Mr. Harris: (Inaudible) procedure and exactly = what he would do (inaudible) Bruce can describe that for you.
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. Darling: To pull out a sl= ate, you have a tool that's called a slate ripper, it's a long flat blade and it= has a half a clover leaf on the end, and you slide it up under the slates and jiggle it around and catch the nail, and then pound on the handle with a ha= mmer and it cuts the shaft in the nail and then you go to the other one, cause there's typ8cally 2 nails, cut the other one, and then you can pull the sla= te out, in tact, without breaking it, with any luck,. Then once you pull the first slate= out then the nails and the slates below are accessible and you can generally get them out with a claw handle, and on the way back, putting them back in, in = a similar manner, except for the last one, at which point you put in a slate hook, or= you nail (inaudible) the slate to hold it in place, the last one, to keep it wa= ter tight. A straight hook is wha= t it sounds like, it's like a little nail with a shaft and a hook on the end and= you nail it into the deck and you slide the slate up and you bring it right back into the hook and (inaudible) just like if you were repairing the slate, or= you lost one, the same methodology. Anything else you'd like to know?
SPECIAL MEETING
AUGUST 2, 2006
PAGE 8
= ; Mr. Ceniccola: Thank you. Any other ques= tions on #1?
=
; 2. =
What
types of tests will you implement for investigating the condition of the
masonry, both interior and exterior?
= ; Mr. Bowman: In our proposal t= he only test or probing method besides visual inspection that we have called attention to and planned on providing at this time is to go around during o= ur visual inspection and send the masonry with a hammer to determine what cond= ition it is. The reason for that is we find it more helpful to get involved with = the project and get into investigating the preliminary investigation of the building. Before we make recommendations for test methods and the extend of methods, when we don't really know exactly what we're going to find, and what tests may be benefic= ial and what tests will not be beneficial, so what our intention is is to near = the end of our preliminary inspection provide recommendations for the test and = some of the testing that would potentially be beneficial that we might recommend= is like determining the (inaudible) strength of the masonry, find out what it's capable of, examine the mortar, find out what it consists of and what condi= tion it's in and also possibly doing an absorption rot test on the brick to find= out how quickly the water is penetrating to find out how that is affecting the brick work. Those are the typ= es of things we are looking at, but again we'd like to get into it first and get = an understanding so we can figure out what the limits are and what types of te= st methods make the most sense.
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. Kuegler: Will these test methods be part of your submittal to us?
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. Bowman: The additional te= st methods were not listed as part of our submittal, cause= it's hard to put a number on something like that when you don't really know= how many different tests will be required.
=
; 3. =
What
procedure would be used for investigating the condition of the roof framing
that bears in the exterior walls where water is present?
= Mr. Bowman: What we intend on doing is having = any finishes that are in the way removed, visually inspecting it and also potentially removing some bricks from around the beams or (inaudible) so we= can check where it's actually seeded in the bearing pocket to check for decay or any other detrimental conditions that may exist. If we find decay then at that time= we can also determine how much (inaudible) has occurred so that we can figure = out what's left, what condition its' really yin.
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. Ceniccola: during your investigation and testing, who will be the firm = that will actually do the certified testing materials?
=
Mr. Bowman: We use IMTL for testing lab an=
d also
SPECIAL MEETING
AUGUST 2, 2006
PAGE 9
=
; 4. =
Who
removes the portions of the interior walls for the investigation?
= ; Mr. Bowman: My understanding = from attending the walk through was that the Town would provide two things, a lift to acce= ss the roof and the upper portions of the building for inspection of (inaudibl= e) and also that they would provide a mason or cont= ractor to remove samples or finishes as required for inspection purpose of hidden conditions. WE also intend on using, so that we don't take apart the whole building it's our intention to= use thermography, it's (inaudible) camera to go arou= nd and it senses it's temperature differential, but it allows you to see where moisture or other hidden conditions exist.= IN that way we don’t' have to say let's open here, here, and h= ere, and hope that we hit something that we really want to see that will help te= ll the story. When we see it on = the camera, it should give us a good idea as to where the problems are occurrin= g therefore we can go right into those areas and open up and expose, rather than taking apart everything and who knows what we will find.
= Mr. Ceniccola: Now that process will be used for = the interior and exterior?
= Mr. Bowman: Yes.
= ; Mr. Harris: Actually I was go= ing to say that ti8 also allows us to conform that there are similar conditions in other areas where we won't have to actually take things apart, we want to t= ry to minimize the number of locations where we're going to do destructive rem= oval of existing finishes to observe the conditions. This is one aspect that will give = us a picture of whether the same conditions exist (inaudible) area so we know the quantities that we're dealing with in regar= ds to destruction but we don't have to take everything apart to verify it.
= Mr. Ceniccola: (inaudible.)
= Mr. Harris: (Inaudible.)
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. Bowman: Yes, it was. Thermocam.
SPECIAL MEETING
AUGUST 2, 2006
PAGE 10
=
; 5. =
What
are the costs for the structural analysis of the existing members for curre=
nt
usage applying current building code?
= Mr. Bowman: In accordance with the RFP, we did= n't provide any costs for analyzing because it didn't ask us to analyze the members, so it wasn't included, however and it's also difficult to determine what those costs may be with the (inaudible) put together the RFP who I thi= nk can change that cost, a lot of things can vary it, based on how many differ= ent member sizes that we potentially have to analyze, different spacing and ori= entation numbers, so at this point it's hard to exactly tell how we, we're thinking = that based on what I did see, look at, at the best case, I guess you'd look at o= ne floor joist for each floor, one being assuming everything else is typical, = and then I was thinking of two trusses and a rafter because the end trusses sup= port additional loading from some of the rafters so looking at that, that's the = type of initial level I would expect. Some other work that would be involved to do the structural analysis which is be= yond what we were assuming would be a little bit more in depth investigation so = that we could really determine the size of the members, take some floor, length, width depth measurements for all of the different conditions and really com= e up with a good training plan and the trusses, roofs are probably particularly challenging because there are a lot of members and you have to get each mem= ber whereas (inaudible look t one joist and it's probably pretty typical, so th= ere will be a little extra field time, but however with that level of effort th= at I described, the few floor members and the trusses, we're looking at probably somewhere in the range of $4,000 to $'6,000 for a study to analyze gravity (inaudible). If it's something that the Town desires to evaluate for sizing= it for wind floating it would be additional costs to that because it's more involved evaluation.
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. Harris: We were kind of assuming that your intention was to evaluate gravity laws, so (inaudible) w= hat is the compatibility of the load in terms of (inaudible what not necessaril= y to do an entire evaluation of the structure and making a shear wall for the seismic (inaudible) things like that, so the load rating approach is the am= ount of work that would be in that $4,000 to $6,000, but we would determine the number of members and (inaudible) once we go tin there and identified the (inaudible).
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. Kuegler: Are we looking at assuring ourselves that our building meets today's' code's standards, the latest?
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. Bowman: That's what the question was, the question was what are the cost= s of structural analysis of the existing members of current usage applying curre= nt building code, that was the exact question.
= Mr. Kuegler: Those change every .= . . .
=
; &n=
bsp; Mr.
Bowman: Few years, yea.
SPECIAL MEETING
AUGUST 2, 2006
PAGE 11
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. Harris: So (inaudible) ap= proach wasn't for a, we would go in and say what do you have here for a floor jois= t in this particular floor and what's there (inaudible) so we would think what y= ou would want to end up with is this floor system right now is good for (inaudible) per square foot. = That may or may not meet the code, but what you're using it for.
= Mr. Kuegler: Right now the upper level is being= used for storage, and basically it's my thinking that because of egress we haven= 't used the upper levels, but when we get ready to do something with he building, we ought to know what capacities we have.=
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. Harris: We can also make = recommendations if you know that you want to achieve a particular load rating for a floor a= nd that existing floor doesn't actually have that capacity we can make recommendations on what would need to be done to increase the capacity up to what you like.
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. Kuegler: There are certain sections of the code book that tell you about light loads and dead loads, in other words, like right now it's used for storage of paper files, and that'= s a heavy load, and if we're going to continue to use it, we have to go to redesign, but if we were going to use it for a conference room it would be a little bit different. (Tape #= 1, Side A ended - may have missed some.) level acceptable for this type of load (inaudible).
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. Bowman: Yea, we're talkin= g do often actually, for various clients, mezzanines, buildings, stores, whateve= r, it's also the case with an older building where you need to load rate it and identify the capacity somewhere in the space because it doesn't quite meet = the code, so we do them all the time.
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. Ceniccola: The $4,000 to = $6,000 is based on your experience on the styles of buildings.
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. Bowman: Exactly.
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. Ceniccola: And you feel comfortable?
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. Bowman: Yes.
SPECIAL MEETING
AUGUST 2, 2006
PAGE 12
=
; 6. =
Would
there be an additional cost for attending more than one meeting?
= Mr. Bowman: The answer is yes, there would= be additional costs. Out scope included one meeting to present our findings and if any like the Public Buildings Committee any additional meetings that weren't intended and we can certainly attend and take part in additional meetings, probably still (inaudible) Fuss & O'Neill staff based on prep time, attendance at the meeting and ant follow up. Fo= r an 8 hour time period we're looking at about $1,100 and we would really recommend because depending on what's required of a meeting or meetings, there might = be less or more effort required so we recommend doing it on an hourly basis.
= Mr. Chipko: The reason that question was in the= re because we also have besides the Buildings Committee, there is also the Historical Commission and Restore the Town Hall Committee, and after we get done with the information provided, then it has to go to the Town Council, = so there might be 1 or 2 other meetings before we get done.
= ; Mr. Ceniccola: So if I unders= tand this correctly, you're saying that for a formal meeting, your typical charge would be $1,100?
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. Bowman: That's for an 8 h= our timeframe.
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. Harris: That's preparatio= n for the meeting, putting drawings together, sketches or photographs or whatever= is needed and then attending that meeting, assuming that the man-hours require= d to go into that are average of per meeting would be $1= ,100.
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. Ceniccola: So (inaudible)= of attending a meeting= and making a presentation.
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. Harris: Yes, but that's w= hy we recommend doing it hourly, cause it’s more fair to either of us if we= do it hourly, cause If you ask us to come down for an hour and it doesn’t take too much time, you don't want to pay $1,100 for a very brief effort you would have to put in, but if we have to put in 2 days worth of effort to prepare materials and attend a 6 hour lengthy meeting, it wouldn't be fair = to us to charge $1,100 either, sp depending on the nature of the meeting and t= he number of hours required, we think it's fair all the way around to approach additional meetings on an hourly basis.&nb= sp; We could certainly give you an estimate if a meeting is requested.
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. Ceniccola: What is your h= ourly fee?
= Mr. Harris: It varies depending on the classif= ication the employee. We have brought= with us our hourly rates figuring you might ask that question.
SPECIAL MEETING
AUGUST 2, 2006
PAGE 13
=
; 7. =
Will
the presence of mold and mildew in the exterior walls be investigated as pa=
rt
of this study?
= Mr. Bowman: A lot of it, the most direct a= nswer is we didn't intend on doing any mold and mildew investigation, however with Therma technology and different methods of inspection that we will provide = such as the infrared camera which will detect moisture which is where you're goi= ng to find mold and searching for decaying wood members which is what the mold is going to feed on, anytime you have moisture and decay, remember you're like= ly to have mold, so over half the battle will be done just by our inspection.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Some additional work that potentia= lly will be desired would be some testing and some (inaudible) analysis into the conditions and presence of mold. Fuss & O'Neill actually does this all the time. We have qualified staff helping pe= rform mold studies and also prepare the remediation plan for mold, so we can cert= ainly provide those additional tests if requested.
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. Chipko: Well I think the initial intent was to if you see it, identify it in your report, that there= is the presence of mold there and then we could decide what to do with it. Not so much that (inaudible) just = so noted.
&n= bsp; Mr. Bowman: The thermography is a tool that ou= r mold people use quite often to do their analysis in areas where there's moisture= or mold, so they would be able to use the (inaudible)b images that we took of the building to (inaudible).
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. Chipko: When you're doing= the thermography work, does the building have to be empty of employees?
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. Bowman: It has to be after hours, likely not necessarily because of the employees, but to gain the conditions that are optimal for performing the infrared scan. You really want the building to he= at up during the day, have the sun bake on it, and then right around dusk, or just after, partially building starts cooling down, that's when the camera will = get its best reading because the differential between the different elements wi= ll be greater.
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. Chipko: You'll do that al= so for the roof?
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. Bowman: Not necessarily s= o much for the roof, we weren't intending at least. From your perspective, what's your thoughts on it?
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. Harris: Typically no mold= roof per say. You say a lot of boa= rds it's pretty obvious (inaudible) mold (inaudible) but you want to replace th= at board in any case. If you had to enclose that (inaudible) ceiling installation.<= /span> I haven't been u there so I don't = know (inaudible) I'm assuming (inaudible).
SPECIAL MEETING
AUGUST 2, 2006
PAGE 14
&n= bsp; Mr. Ceniccola: My concern would be the perime= ter of the building where the structure is actually being supported, thermal image= s be used in that area, the perimeter just the load (inaudible)? I think we have some issues there = that we noted on one of our walk throughs.
&n= bsp; Mr. Darling: There are gutters all around (inaudible). The gutters are = built in place (inaudible) test cuts in those too, that being a high candidate for wetness (inaudible) because the first slopes and such is place where water collects. Typically on a stra= ight off eave, where water just runs off, it doesn't collect and you don't get m= uch rot unless you have failed slate (inaudible) water comes down on the boards= for a number of years.
=
; &n=
bsp; Mr.
Bowman: Also just an exam=
ple,
in case you guys want to take a look at what the thermagraphics . . . .
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. Chipko: If you were given= the go ahead, how many weeks would you need to get moving b= efore you could start?
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. Bowman: Probably a couple= of weeks.
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. Darling: A week.
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. Harris: A week for the ro= of and 2 we= eks for . . . . our understanding is that the (inaudible) lifted up and (inaudible;).
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. Chipko: The Town is going= to supply it, I'm not sure how they're going to do = it.
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. Bowman: That was my understanding.
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. Harris: There also was a question regarding the interior portion of the building, the second floor .= . . .
&n= bsp; Mr. Kuegler: yea, well it's the second floor, it's a gymnasium type ceiling.
&n= bsp; Mr. Harris: It's a very high ceiling and we're= going to have to provide some way to get up in that area to take a close look.
&n= bsp; Mr. Kuegler: What part of your (inaudible) woul= d be powered. You have to get upstairs.
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. Harris: Is this the Build= ings Committee?
SPECIAL MEETING
AUGUST 2, 2006
PAGE 15
&n= bsp; Mr. Kuegler: Yes, we're the Public Buildings Committee.
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. Harris: If you don't have= any more questions for us, would you mind if I asked you a few questions? So I can get a better understandin= g of where you're coming from?
&n= bsp; Mr. Kuegler: Sure.
&n= bsp; Mr. Harris: How long have you been dealing with moisture problems?
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. LeBlanc: Since 1971.
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. Harris: That's when the f= irst problems were noted?
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. LeBlanc: That's when they turned down the first $80,000 to repair everything.
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. Harris: Have you done any= , what kind of investigations have you done, or other measures to try and fix thes= e problems?
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. Chipko: They've had at le= ast 3 studies, if not more.
&n= bsp; Mr. Harris: Are those studies available?
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. Ceniccola: We could ask.<= /p>
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. Harris: It would be good background information for us to see what's been done previously, again, ju= st to get a better feel for what the full conditions are.
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. Chipko: There was a major review of the building back in the mid to late 90's (inaudible) there were already issues then, but obviously nothing has improved since then.
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. Fusco: We also put scaffo= lding around the building so that nobody gets hit with the tiles.
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. Harris: So then you have = done actual construction, you've taken measures?
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. Kuegler: No.
&n= bsp; Mr. Harris: They were all just studies, you haven't actually performed any work on the building?
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. Ceniccola: Yes. With the excep= tion of (inaudible).
SPECIAL MEETING
AUGUST 2, 2006
PAGE 16
&n= bsp; Mr. Kuegler: For a number of years we always ha= d this issue of renovating, building a new Town Hall, converting a school to a Town Hall, buying an empty building for a Town Hall and we've gone around the ba= rn about 20 times, get a number and sit on it, and then look at this, that, and the other, and meanwhile we have 3 offices, the Tax Collector, Assessor, and Town Clerk there and were preparing hopefully to possibly convert a grammar school into a Town Hall in 3 years.
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. Harris: So I guess the mo= ney you spent on studies, I guess I'm trying to get a feel for, were the result= s or conclusions from the studies not implemented because the fixes were maybe t= oo expensive?
&n= bsp; Mr. Ceniccola: Part of it was they didn't kno= w what they were doing with the building. The way they actually worked out is that there were studies that were conducted, they were presented to the Town Council for review, they in turn wanted o have a better understanding on where we were going with the rest of the buildings in the Town and try to better understand whether or not (inau= dible) as far as if we're renovating that building and continue to use it as a Town Hall, or move all of the offices out of there and use it for something else. And then there's changes in administration, public servants that are involved, and we start = all over again.
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. Chipko: This actually sta= rted as they wanted to fix the roof, and then there's bulges= on the north side of the building on the bearing walls, so the Buildings Committee thought it was kind of silly to fix the roof if what is supportin= g it is falling down, so we expanded the study.
&n= bsp; Mr. Kuegler: Then there's not enough land that = goes with the building, the Town is not interested adjacent property that night = be or had been for sale over the last couple of years.
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. Ceniccola: Our concern an= d our charge right now is to ensure that the building = has structural integrity for whatever the town decides to do with it.
&n= bsp; Mr. Harris: If you wouldn’t mind sharing= with me, there were 2 firms that were short listed and interviewed this evening, would you be able to share with me what in particular about Fuss & O'Ne= ill attracted you, gave you the idea that we would be able to do this work for = you? Was your short listing based on fee or a technical approach?
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. Chipko: As an engineer my= self, I was more interested in the proposal that you presented, what you were goi= ng to do. I wasn't as worried ab= out the fee.
SPECIAL MEETING
AUGUST 2, 2006
PAGE 17
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. Harris: We had prepared w= ritten responses to the questions, but if that would help, we can distribute some copies just so that you can refer back to it later and not have to worry ab= out what you remember. Do you hav= e any other questions or concerns?
&n= bsp; Mr. Kuegler: Most of your expertise is in gener= al structures? I know I had some= back about 4 or 5 years ago, I worked with some of your people in the State Fuel Cell (inaudible).
&n= bsp; Mr. Harris: Fuss & O'Neill's company is mu= lti-(inaudible). We cover a wide variety of enginee= ring disciplines. Our structural g= roup, this is a structural project, so we would be spearheading this project, but= our company does environmental work, industrial engineering and municipal work = and site designs, and civil . . . .
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. Kuegler: I think at the t= ime you had 2 people working in-house in the State for like 3 years, they clocked in every day at the State for 2 years.
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. Harris: D.P.W.?
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. Kuegler: Yes.
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. Harris: Ron Reese?
&n= bsp; Mr. Kuegler: Yes. I wax the electrical specialist for public works so I oversaw that.
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. Harris: We don't have that contract any more.
&n= bsp; Mr. Kuegler: Well you did them all.
&n=
bsp; Mr. Harris: Yea, but we pretty much do any
engineering you can think of with the exception of geotech. Well we actually have a geotech wh=
o does
small jobs, but we don't tout ourselves as being geotechnical engineers.
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. Ceniccola: Thank you for your time.
SPECIAL MEETING
AUGUST 2, 2006
PAGE 18
6. =
Discussion
and Possible Vote on Recommendation to Town Council regarding Hiring firm f=
or
Town hall Engineering Structural Analysis
&= nbsp; Mr. LeBlanc: I like this firm= , the energy that they're doing, it cost more, but I think it's a step in the rig= ht direction although I like Calabrese (inaudible).
&= nbsp; Mr. Bellagamba: What kind of costs are involved?
&= nbsp; Mr. Chipko: Calabrese included in his pack= age the structural analysis of the existing building, where they want an extra. IN his answer sheet he= talks about $15,0-00, so I think with Fuss & O'Neill you're probably going to= pay for every little thing you asked for where with Calabrese I think you can probably bargain and (inaudible) liability insurance he can knock $2,000 off the project. Calabrese knows = what he's doing, he's been around a long time. I've worked with Keith Bowman, he actually used to work for me and they're both knowledgeable engineers, they= 've been around awhile. They both= have good and bad. I'd like if we = could talk Joe into doing a thermal scan of the walls, that would be a great thing, that would make sense. The thing that bothers me about Ke= ith's presentation is they're going to give us a list of things you should do for further testing; Joe is going to give you a report that is the rights and wrongs of the building, so to me it's like Fuss & O'Neill is going to t= urn a $23,000 fee into a possible $40,000 by the time they're done.
&= nbsp; Mr. Bellagamba: (Inaudible.)<= /p>
&= nbsp; Mr. Chipko: I mean that's whe= re I came up with that question, I was comparing the two and Joe said I'm going = to do an analysis of the existing building based on th4e building codes in eff= ect right now, where Fuss & O'Neill wasn't, and yes we didn't ask for it in the RFP, but this guy is giving it to us and his price is already lower by $5,000. I think both are qualified, but I = have a concern that Fuss b& O'Neill might get higher and higher.
&=
nbsp; Mr. Dzioba: Both are qualified (inaudible).
&= nbsp; Mr. Ceniccola: Your concern is th= at at the end of the day, with Fuss & O'Neill, we're going to end up with (1)= an initial study, (2) a list of itemized suggestions that we should continue w= ith at a price, and then the final report as opposed to Joe who will just basic= ally complete the study provide us with a report for a (inaudible).
&= nbsp; Mr. Chipko: I mean this is re= ally a two phase project, Phase I is the study Phase II= is the actual work, the repairs with whoever the firm is overseeing it.
SPECIAL MEETING
AUGUST 2, 2006
PAGE 19
&= nbsp; Mr. Dzioba: We shouldn't lose track of what we'= re trying to do here, we want to find out whether we should save the building = or not. We're not doing the stud= y to see whether we should change things to make it more accessible, that's something we can get into later if we decide to keep it, because at this po= int we don’t' even know if we're going to keep that building (inaudible) = it's going to be somebody else's problem.
&= nbsp; Mr. Kuegler: We want to make = sure the building is structural sound. (Inaudible) even if we want to use it for town offices, we're going = to remodel that hill, and (inaudible).
&= nbsp; Mr. Dzioba: But you're going = to need an architect in there to do a redesign and there's no need to do that = . . . .
&= nbsp; Mr. Kuegler: We want to make = sure the (inaudible).
&= nbsp; Mr. Dzioba: Yes.
&= nbsp; Mr. Ceniccola: Calabrese was = going to tell you what that second floor, actually what the first floor is rated for= for (inaudible) 50 lbs, 100 lbs, etc. Again, it was included in his fee, where Fuss & O'Neill was goin= g to do a sample. Well that's great, but . . . .
&=
nbsp; Mr. Kuegler: One of my questions where I explai=
ned
about the loads, working for the State, they built a library at UConn Storrs
and they just turned around and said this is a meeting room, storage, etc. =
and
(inaudible) so the person in charge of the building, wasn't looking at
drawings, and instead of conference tables over there, where the light load=
is
50 lbs, he put books over there. All
of a sudden the building started going and they =
come
back and said (inaudible).
&= nbsp; Mr. Chipko: Well I (inaudible) before we used t= o go and design schools, classrooms (inaudible) in the main areas where you gath= er, those are 100, but then it got ridiculous and over a period of time they st= ated moving classrooms around, (inaudible).&nbs= p; It's not worth the hassles. But the problem you have is that what was this really rated for. I'm a littl= e concerned with the price tag, the final number on Fuss & O'Neill.
&= nbsp; Mr. Ceniccola: If there's a c= oncern regarding the (inaudible) fee, we can always ask Charlie, usually it's an outside firm that comes in and does it anyway, specialized people and equip= ment that people normally don't have in their arsenal of tools, so they bring in= a company to do that, so if that is something we're interested in because of = the mold and mildew issues, water migration, all those things in, we can consid= er having them put it in as an item, then we can either say yea or nay.
&= nbsp; Mr. Fusco: I don't think the building was that= big to (inaudible).
SPECIAL MEETING
AUGUST 2, 2006
PAGE 20
&= nbsp; Mr. Chipko: No, I don't think so either, and yo= u can actually just have the side that just has the worst damage on it (inaudible= ). You know water is getting in there= . I just didn't get a feel that Fuss= & O'Neill will be a final number until down the road, they're leaving a lot of doors open.
&= nbsp; Mr. Kuegler: Further down the road, is Calabres= e the type of person that might be looking, is this something that the building is part of the design group or (inaudible)?
&= nbsp; Mr. Chipko: If we're going to= do something with the building you'd have to hire an architect. If you're going to do just structu= ral repairs, you could hire him. I wouldn't go and hire, unless he does a terrible job with the study, I would= n't go hire Fuss & O'Neill to do the actual design and repairs after this g= uy does the study.
&= nbsp; Mr. Kuegler: No, but you woul= d think Calabrese to follow himself, versus Fuss & O'Neill to follow themselves because their price would be higher.
&=
nbsp; Mr. Ceniccola: It's very possible. Calabrese is in
&= nbsp; Mr. Dzioba: Next week (inaudi= ble).
&= nbsp; Mr. Chipko: Correct. I mean my main concern with Calabr= ese, and he answered it tonight was who was doing the roof, cause I know that Joe himself is not an expert in roofing but both Dayhill and New England are bo= th qualified, and actually Dayhill is a restoration specialist, so on top of d= oing the roof, they can also assist him on (inaudible).
&= nbsp; Mr. Ceniccola: Any additional= questions or comments? DO we think we h= ave enough information to go ahead and vote?
MOTION: (Mr. Chipko, sec. Mr. Dzioba) that we recommend to the Town Council that the Town hire Joseph Calabrese, PC to do the structural evaluation of the existing T= own Hall.
&= nbsp; Discussion: None<= /p>
&= nbsp; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
SPECIAL MEETING
AUGUST 2, 2006
PAGE 21
7.&nb=
sp; Adjournment
MOTION: (Mr. LeBlanc, sec. Mr. Fusco= ) to Adjourn the Special Meeting at 8:10 p.m.
Discussion: None
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
Special Meeting Adjourned at 8:10 p.m.=
Respectfully submitted,
Remo Ceniccola, Vice Chairman
Watertown Public Buildings Committee
Approved: _____________________________= __
Lynn M. LaForme, Clerk