MINUTES

MINUTES<= /span>

&nb= sp;

WATERTOWN PUB= LIC BUILDINGS COMMITTEE

SPECIAL MEETING<= /b>

&nb= sp;

JOHN TRUMBULL PRIMARY SCHOOL

MEDIA CENTER

&nb= sp;

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2005, 7:0= 0 P.M.

PRESENT:             = ;            &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

Robert Porter, Chairman

ABSENT:            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;      John Orsini

OTHERS PRESENT:            Larry Black, Fire Chief

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;         &= nbsp;   Joseph Erardi, Superintendent of Schools

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p; Fred Khericha, Kaestle Boos Associates

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p; Rusty Malik, Kaestle Boos Associates

= ;            &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;         Lorel Purcell, O & G Industries

1.&nb= sp;        Convene Special Meeting - 7:00 P.M.

&n= bsp;

Mr. Porter, Chairman, Called the Meeting to Order at 7:05 p.m.

2.&nb= sp;        Roll Call

Mr. Porter, Chairman, executed the Roll Call.

3.         = Discussion and Possible Action on Recommendation from Board of Education Regarding the Swift Expansion Project. Discussion and Possible Action to Include Recommendation to t= he Town Council on the Project.

        &= nbsp;   Dr. Erardi: While keeping at = the Board of Education Kaestle Boos and O & G (inaudible) we spent a good d= eal of time as an administrative team with Kaestle Boos and with O & G preparing our recommendation for the Board of Education, along with your Ch= air, Mr. Porter. The document that= , I don't know, Bob, did you distribute that?

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Porter: Yes, I did.<= /o:p>

= WATERTOWN PUBLIC BUILDINGS COMMITTEE

SPECIAL MEETING

SEPTEMBER 27, 2005

PAGE 2

        &= nbsp;   Dr. Erardi: The document that= Chairman Porter distributed was the recommendation of the administration and the unanimous endorsement of the Board of Education. We looked at, we believe the charge coming back to us from the P.B.C. was to relook at the educational needs of= the original project, and that's what we did.&= nbsp; The original project of speculation from 3 years ago to projections = from 2.5 years from now, we feel that it's still on t= arget for the needs of the Swift Grades 6, 7, and 8 middle school. I tried to anticipate potential conversation from the Board of Education and that's why you see on the bott= om of that, the recommendation. Actually the number comes from O & G and K.B.A. of the dollars needed with the projection of the local dollars needed, and then ultimately= on $100,000 assessed property, what that really means to the community, the taxpayers. Beyond that there = was conversation about the "what if", what if this didn't go forward, what would happen to the appropriation that's already in place, and I thoug= ht Mr. LoFrese, who couldn't be here this evening, did a really nice job talki= ng about that. If you recall back certainly before my arrival, there was conversation about the mechanicals a= t Swift, it's 50 years old, it still needs to be replaced= . The back of the building, as I thi= nk you know, is wide open, although it's buttoned up, it's wide open, there was asbestos in the caulking of all the windows so all the windows are removed waiting for Phase II, and when we work the numbers, the encumbrance or the expenditure to date is about $3,800,000 and that's an important number to understand where with that $3,800,000 it's eligible for 58% reimbursement.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> If we move away from the project, = as you know, the local takes full responsibility for that $3,800,000. The Board asked 2 or 3 questions, endorsed the recommendation, and I was in touch with Chairman Porter at some point today with the documents that you have in front of you. I'm certainly here to answer any questions you may have and if I don't have the answer I'll certainly get ba= ck to you.

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Porter: As you see from t= he Superintendent's recommendation they did add the alternate list support was= for the rubber flooring, that's a maintenance issue if you're going to build it. The second item, roof, equipment strains, even though it was an alternate to the bid, it's a requirement by Planning and Zoning. They put it as an alternate, to determine what the price was to do i= t, but it's a requirement of P & Z. The auxiliary gym, part of the programmatic side of the school, they voted to go with it. Rusty, m= aybe you can give us a breakdown as far as the dollars, the amount we're going t= o be looking for.

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Malik: Good evening. I believe the number that we'll be= going to referendum for is $6,713,919, although we rounded it up to $6,770,000, in that range. So that's the additional that we would be looking for.&n= bsp; That includes the 3 alternates that have been accepted, the auxiliary gym, the flooring alternate, and also the, we termed it as an alternate, but it's actually part of the base package, the screens on the roof. We have had several meetings with contractors to go over the value engineering. The bottom line number includes the value engineering. At this po= int they're just slightly over $1,000,000 in the value engineering process and Lorel can address any issues regarding the bids. I believe she has letters from the contractors, minus maybe 3 or 4, who have not committed, put in writing the= commitment to hold their prices until the referendum is approved, which I believe is J= anuary 12th or 15th, somewhere in that timeframe.

= WATERTOWN PUBLIC BUILDINGS COMMITTEE

SPECIAL MEETING

SEPTEMBER 27, 2005

PAGE 3

        &= nbsp;   Overall we've maintained in this budget, with this money we've maintained the furni= ture and technology at $1,050,000 which is what the budget was originally. And again, as I mentioned, we took= 3 alternates. Are there any spe= cific questions?

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Ceniccola: No, a comment.= I attended one of the value engine= ering meetings on Friday and reviewed with the rest of the group, actually a long list of items that were on the table for review and I would report back to the Committee that we maintained the structural integrity of the facility and m= ade sure that any cuts would not impact the long term maintenance of the facili= ty, so I think they did a good job of looking over what was available for possi= ble removal from the project. I t= hink this is a good set of alternates.

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Porter: Lorel, question on holding the price on the contracts.

        &= nbsp;   Ms. Purcell: Because some of = the bidding was so up in the air, as far as if you took one alternate versus an= other I would have differing low bidders, I sent a memo out and a form letter to = 24 contractors on the 19 bid packages. Of th= ose 24, I received back 20 responses in writing. BKM Floor Covering told me today t= hat they cannot hold the price past 60 days.&n= bsp; He told me it would be $33,000 extra for the 60 days. There are a few more that I'm wait= ing on.

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Porter: They were the low= bid?

        &= nbsp;   Ms. Purcell: BKM is the Floor= ing contractors, and we only got 2 bids on that. Depending on how things are in a c= ouple of months, there is the option of going out to rebid if that's what we want= to do, if we thought we might get something better.

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Porter: What's the jump t= o the next bidder?

        &= nbsp;   Ms. Purcell: About $300,000, = there was a significant difference in those 2 prices. So we were kind of concerned, we d= id a very quick scope review, so we were kind of concerned on how they even bid = the project. I've pretty much gotten the forms = back from everybody saying there would not be an increase.

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Ceniccola: The only issue= we had on Friday were there were certain line items= that we didn't have actual numbers for. <= /span>Were you able to get any of that information back?

        &= nbsp;   Ms. Purcell: I've gotten some= of it. There are still a couple = of items that are unpriced. I did bring the value engineering list with me, I wasn't sure whether or not if y= ou wanted me to distribute it so people could start looking at it, it's up to you. At some point the Building Committee is going to want to take a look= at these value engineering items that are on the table. It's an up to date list, it's a breathing list, as I get numbers I'm updating it, so I'm still missing a couple.

= WATERTOWN PUBLIC BUILDINGS COMMITTEE

SPECIAL MEETING

SEPTEMBER 27, 2005

PAGE 4

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Porter: You should probab= ly pass it out tonight so we'll have it.

        &= nbsp;   Ms. Purcell: You can take a l= ook at it on your own time and if there is anything that's not, that you're strong= ly against, you can bring it up at the next meeting, cause= we definitely don't want to waste time trying to pinpoint dollars on items = that aren't going to be accepted.

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Porter: Rey, you said you= were pretty well pleased with the . . . .

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Ceniccola: Yea, overall I= think we did a good job of going through it, I think it's important that the Committee get the list.

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Porter: Positively.<= /o:p>

        &= nbsp;   Ms. Purcell: I have one thing= to add to the Agenda tonight. I'= ve got a proposal to reinsulated the steam mains in the tunnels. It's something that = needs to be done before the heating system starts, which is in a couple of weeks.=

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Porter: This being a Spec= ial Meeting, we can't add anything to the Agenda, but our next meeting . . . . .

        &= nbsp;   Ms. Purcell: It's going to be= too late, but I can certainly hand out the paperwork and maybe we can do an ema= il vote.

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Porter: We'll probably be holding another Special Meeting anyway.

        &= nbsp;   Ms. Purcell: That's something= that has to be done right away. So= I've got 2 pieces of paper to hand out at the end.

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Kuegler: I've got one que= stion as far as modifications go. R= usty, I (inaudible) plan and design of the project, and one thing that comes to m= ind is the slope of the auditorium floor and the cost of redoing it. Was a modification ever requested = of the State Building Official's Office that we could leave the same pitch?

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Malik: That would be an A= .D.A. modification and it's our experience that we don't typically get modifications like that= .

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Kuegler: Is it worth a sh= ot, though?

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Malik: We can give it a shot. There are also issues w= ith site lines, so we'll look at both, it's been awhile since I looked at that particular item, it was very early in the project, but certainly we can loo= k at both, as those are 2 that came to mind and I will take a look at them.=

= WATERTOWN PUBLIC BUILDINGS COMMITTEE

SPECIAL MEETING

SEPTEMBER 27, 2005

PAGE 5

        &= nbsp;   I would like to mention that on the budget we carried two contractors who were not the original low bidders. One was the concrete contractor and the other is the roofing contractor, because scoping them out, one actually withdrew their bid and the other one had mad= e an error. If you remember there = were two alternates for the concrete, should have been an ad= d, and this particular contractor had a deduct there, so we're carrying the se= cond low bidder just to be on the safe side in this particular budge analysis.

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Porter: And the deduct was $75,000 so it's substantial.

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Malik: Even after that, i= f you made that an add, it's still a good sized differ= ence, but I think we need to carry the higher number until we're comfortable that that contractor can perform the work.

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Chipko: Are there any oth= er contractors or any other materials that might possibly have to go out for rebid because= of problems with the contractors?

        &= nbsp;   Ms. Purcell: The only one I k= now we need to rebid is the elevator. It's a possibility to rebid the flooring, and I don’t know if anybody want= s to go there with rebidding the heating, cause we on= ly got 2 bids on that too, which were pretty close to each other. Everybody else is pretty good, as = long as we can award contracts by January 12th.= We were kind of concerned about the electricians, cause we've been hearing that electrical supplies have been going through the roof lately, b= ut he's holding his price.

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Porter: Some of the suppo= rting documents that the Superintendent provided last night to the Board of Educa= tion was the memo from O & G which addresses price increases. If you take a look= at that, it's pretty clear where the problem came from. Any other ques= tions? If not, the next item would be discussion and possible action to include recommendation to the Town Counci= l on the project, and that would be for the list that was generated by the Superintendent's recommendation with the supporting documents from K.B.A. representing the dollars. The Council meets October 3rd, so if we approve it tonight the letter will go to them for their meeting. In anticipation of this, at their October 3rd meeting they have a tentative da= te for October 17th for a public hearing, first on Swift a= n then on the Firehouse.

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Ceniccola: Do we want to = take the time to review the value engineering information before we go ahead and make a recommendation?

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Porter: Are you comfortab= le with it?

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Ceniccola: I'm comfortabl= e with it.

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Porter: Well we've been t= hrough it a few times. We really loo= ked hard to see where we could do some cuts without affecting the operation and maintenance of the building. I would feel comfortable and pushing it forward to the Council.

= WATERTOWN PUBLIC BUILDINGS COMMITTEE

SPECIAL MEETING

SEPTEMBER 27, 2005

PAGE 6

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Kuegler: (Inaudible)?

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Porter: No, maybe 4 to vote. Rusty, if you could exp= lain about the contingency amount for the new construction so we could feel comfortable with having enough money. If we go back, we want to go back only one time.

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Malik: We are actually in= the revised budgets carrying a construction contingency of $1,400,000. In the original scope we were carr= ying a contingency of $1,250,000 so we've actually increased that by $150,000. Also if there is additional value engineering numbers that come in, right now the budget is based on the $1,000,000 in value engineering savings, so the thought is that that additional funds anything that we get would go to= wards the contingency just to have in case some other issues come up.<= /span>

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Porter: Any other questio= ns?

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Kuegler: (Inaudible) moti= on that we recommend to the Town Council that we go to referendum for the additional . . . . .

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Porter: Items as recommen= ded from the Board of Education with supporting documentation for the dollars as provided by K.B.A. and O & G.

        &= nbsp;   MOTION:       (Mr. = Kuegler, sec. Mr. Dzioba) to recommend to the Town Council that we go to referendum = for the additional items as recommended from the Board of Education with suppor= ting documentation for the dollars as provided by K.B.A. and O & G.

        &= nbsp;   Discussion:       None<= o:p>

        &= nbsp;   MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

Mr. Porter, Chairman, called a Recess at 7:23 p.m.

Mr., Porter, Chairman, Reconvened the Special Meeting at 7:30 p.m.

= WATERTOWN PUBLIC BUILDINGS COMMITTEE

SPECIAL MEETING

SEPTEMBER 27, 2005

PAGE 7

4.         = Discussion and Possible Action on Recommendation from Fire Department Regarding Fire H= ouse Renovation Project. Discussion and Possible Action to Include Recommendation to t= he Town Council on the Project.

        &= nbsp;   Chief Black: Good evening. Since the time that we met with yo= u at your last meeting a couple of weeks ago, and at that time we indicated that= we would be willing to accept the value engineered product, we met with our Building Committee, we met with our officers, and the reason we're late tonight, and I thank you guys for being patient with us on that, is we just= met with the membership of the Department.&nbs= p; And it's the unanimous feeling of all 3 groups that the cuts that are being offered to us in order to get to the funds that we have are basically unacceptable. At the last mee= ting we had a couple of hours from the time they were presented to us until the = time we met with you, so I probably reacted early on that, and that's no one's f= ault but my own for doing that, but after looking at where we're going to end up= , we all felt that we were better off asking the Town for more funds, rather than giving in to a building just isn't what we sold to the Town #1, and #2, sol= d to ourselves. Some of it can be considered aesthetic in nature, but a lot of it is just not the product tha= t I think we want, and the general feeling is if we can't do it right, then we shouldn't do it at all cause we just don't want to deal with all the other things that need to be added into it after the building is complete. I could go down a list of them, bu= t I listed many of our reasons in the letter that I've presented to the Town Manager and you guys have a copy of. I could show you from an exterior point of view where we're at now a= nd where we should be. I'll pass= this around, but this is the building close to what we went to bid for. This drawing is not exact. There were some changes made, but = this is close to what we went to bid for, and if we accept the value engineering, this is close to what we would be settling for. It's a huge difference and it’= ;s not what we agreed upon and it's not what the Town agreed upon, and some of your members actually asked us that at the last meeting, and really got the ball rolling with the thought process that we went through these last 2 weeks. Thank you guys= for that. It kind of opene= d our eyes to the fact that we weren't getting what we signed up for. I'd be happy to answer any question= s, and Rusty and Fred are here too for that reason. We feel that the figure that we re= vised today is what we would need to bring it back up to what we're looking for.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> We've also added in some of the alternates in that figure, in order to get it back to what we want it to be= at also.

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Porter: Just for the Comm= ittee, Alternate #2 is sandblasting and painting the existing post tower staircase. Alternate #2 was replacing the (inaudible) brick in limited locations. Alternate #4 was the standing meta= l seam roof. I just would mention th= at there is a tremendous difference price-wise.

        &= nbsp;   Chief Black: We realize that.

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Porter: (Inaudible) $92,5= 00 and this price is $8,100. It's my understanding that they're going to hold the price.

= WATERTOWN PUBLIC BUILDINGS COMMITTEE

SPECIAL MEETING

SEPTEMBER 27, 2005

PAGE 8

        &= nbsp;   Chief Black: We believe so.

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Porter: That's a tremendo= us amount of money. Alternate 5C= was the poured resin floor, and Alternate #6 was the flooring concrete sealant,= and that totals $61,900 from the original bid.

        &= nbsp;   Chief Black: Right.<= /span>

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Porter: And at this point, using these figures, Gar San is the low bid, not LaRosa. That's the only thing I have. Any other ques= tions?

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Ceniccola: I'm heartened = that the Fire Department's Building Committee had a change of heart on this project. I was a little conce= rned over the value engineered version of this particular facility and what it w= ould look like at the end of the day and what the Townspeople would think of it. I think the current build= ing needs a facelift and the path you're taking will give it the facelift that = it needs, plus provide your Department's particular needs. So it's a good choice.<= /span>

        &= nbsp;   Chief Black: Thank you.

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Porter: Anything else? If not, then the next item is disc= ussion and possible action to include the recommendation to the Town Council on th= e project. And to that, I'd like to add that = the dollar amount be verified by K.B.A., cause it's been a short timeframe for those figures, so we need to have K.B.A. look at it and verify it and make = sure the contingency amounts are correct, cause it's just like Swift, it's a one shot deal.

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Malik: I did have an opportunity to do some verification but if we have some more time, then tha= t's great. We would just make sur= e that all the numbers work out. I'm fairly confident that the numbers that have been presented will be okay. I did receive a letter from Gar San saying they would hold their bid price through January 15, 2006 so that's another piece to just confirm that we have that and I made copies for the C= ommittee as well.

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Porter: I think the Motio= n we need then is to go with the recommendation as presented by the Fire Departm= ent, and the figures verified by K.B.A. and pass that along to the Council. Their meeting is Monday, October 3rd, within that timeframe?

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Malik: Yes.

        &= nbsp;   MOTION:       (Mr. Ceniccola, sec. Mr. Kuegler) to go with the recommendation as presented by = the Fire Department, and the figures verified by K.B= .A. and pass that along to the Council.

        &= nbsp;   Discussion:       None<= o:p>

        &= nbsp;   MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

= WATERTOWN PUBLIC BUILDINGS COMMITTEE

SPECIAL MEETING

SEPTEMBER 27, 2005

PAGE 9

5.&nb= sp;        Adjournment=

MOTION:       (Mr. Kuegler, sec. Mr. Fusco) to Adjourn the Special Meeting at 7:40 p.m.

Discussion:       None

MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

Special Meeting Adjourned at 7:40 p.m.=

Respectfully submitted,

Robert Porter, Chairman

Watertown Public Buildings Committee

Approved:   _____________________________= __

        Lynn M. LaForme, Clerk