AVON FREE PUBLIC LIBRARY RENOVATIONS & ADDITION PROJECT
BUILDING COMMITTEE MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING
OCTOBER 7, 2011
I. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:30 AM by Chairperson Diane Hornaday in the Avon Room, Building 1 Town Hall. Members present: Chairperson Diane Hornaday, Secretary David Goldsholl, Janet Stokesbury, Barbara Leonard, Diane Carney and J. Tad Kuziak. Member absent: Scott Boos. Also in attendance were Assistant to the Town Manager Steve Bartha, Architect Peter Wells, Director of Public Works Bruce Williams, Library Director Virginia Vocelli and Enterprise Builders Project Engineer Wayne Czarnecki.
Mr. Bartha suggested tabling agenda items II through V in order to concentrate discussions on the flooring issue at the library.
VI. NEW BUSINESS: a. Review, Discuss, & Advise on Flooring issue
Mr. Czarnecki provided an overview of the flooring issue. He explained that the purpose of performing moisture tests on poured concrete is in response to modern “green” water based adhesives used in today’s floor covering materials. He referred to a handout showing square footage, moisture testing results, carpet materials with allowable moisture levels needed to keep warranties in effect, and possible remediation options. The moisture content figure does not affect areas that are to be covered by ceramic tile. The original contractor’s testing showed a moisture content of 99% which led to an independent testing which still showed consistent high levels. Remediation includes the Koester Mitigation System which allows 100% moisture or Versashield which allows up to 95%.
Mr. Bartha asked Mr. Czarnecki to provide some additional background on the issue and to discuss the integrity of the concrete itself. Mr. Czarnecki said concrete takes 36 days per inch to cure and that this concrete was poured back in June. The high rain and humidity of the summer season enabled the concrete to suck moisture into it. The concrete contractor O & G was brought into a meeting to explain and referred to another current project that had similar 99% moisture content as well. Mr. Czarnecki further explained that the strength of the concrete is not affected at all by the moisture content and tested sound. Over time the moisture will work its way out but the length of time to do so cannot be accurately determined. Mr. Bartha added that, through discussions with the job supervisor and Mr. Boos, attempts to
close off the building and apply fans would not necessarily guarantee that a significant enough reduction in the moisture content could be achieved. Ms. Carney asked for further explanation. Mr. Czarnecki said the carpet manufacturer’s warranties would only apply to concrete floors with moisture contents as follows: Tandus- 90%, Milliken – 80% and the VCT -85%. Ms. Carney questioned how much the carpet would cost. Mr. Czarnecki said between the labor and material costs, the total flooring contract for phases one and two, including vinyl, carpet and ceramic tile, was approximately $200,000.00. Mr. Bartha clarified that the warranty only covered the materials and not the labor or cost involved in moving all the furnishings as well.
Ms. Hornaday questioned the blasting as part of the Koester System. Mr. Czarnecki said the contractor would have to blast the surface of the concrete to make it porous to accept the treatment. He continued that the problem with this mitigation system would entail an extra step of adding another leveling layer to the top which would affect door heights as well as the time frame. Ms. Carney asked if this issue should have come up before. Mr. Czarnecki said that high end floors, such as gymnasiums, require higher specs and that what was done on this project was typical. Ms. Vocelli said that there have been problems with the carpet bubbling over the years on both the plywood and slab surfaces. Mr. Goldsholl noted that given this problem, concrete additives that could address this should be discussed during Phase II of the
project where needed. Mr. Wells said the Tandus carpet has an adhesive on the bottom already where the Milliken products is in tiles, whereby the replacement could be made easier by just replacing tile areas where needed. Mr. Kuziak asked if the warranty applied to the wear as well. Mr. Wells said it was a different part of the warranty and that this one applies to the carpeting being installed per the manufacturer’s instructions. Regardless, Mr. Wells agreed with Mr. Czarnecki that the manufacturer looks for ways to not honor the warranty. Mr. Czarnecki referred to the handout that included the warranties in the back. Mr. Goldsholl asked if we could get a rider to cover the wear only given the moisture issues. Mr. Wells has had experience with the Milliken product and said they were very good about fixing issues and that generally the manufacturers want to keep the builders happy as they relied on them for their business. Mr. Kuziak summed that no matter what the issue; the
manufacturer would still be apt to challenge it and then posed which would be the better option. Mr. Wells said an option would be to not put down any carpet at all and hope that it would dry better in five months to install the carpet thus keeping the warranty in place. Mr. Kuziak questioned then what was the rush to carpet? The other option was to install the carpet and accept the loss of the warranty. Mr. Wells said the cost of replacing the entire carpet would be similar to going the Koester Mitigation System route which would need to be done to install the carpet in order to ensure the warranty. Mr. Czarnecki said the Koester choice still did not include the costs of redoing the doors and other issues. Mr. Kuziak said the Milliken would add the cost of replacement in spot areas as needed and then total replacement in 20 years because of wear issues.
Ms. Carney questioned the schedule. Mr. Czarnecki said the carpet was to be installed now and the purpose of the meeting was to discuss waiting and the ramifications. Mr. Wells suggested rejecting the Koester System and offered two options: 1) do not install the carpet and hope the concrete would dry enough but there were no guarantees and 2) install the carpet without warranty and fix where necessary. Mr. Kuziak clarified that there would be far more cost involved than just using the Koester System, in terms of redoing doors and leveling and the ripple effect, and end up costing far more than the $95,000.00 figure presented. Mr. Czarnecki had hoped the Versashield System would work because of less cost overall but unfortunately the moisture content tested too high to use it. Mr. Kuziak noted that we were going into a
typically dryer period of the year that could help to facilitate the drying. Mr. Wells agreed, but said there was no guarantee. Ms. Carney questioned if the cement will continue to dry after the carpet is installed. Mr. Wells said yes and the Milliken has a more porous backing which is more breathable. Mr. Goldsholl asked if there was any experience where the floor dried faster with either scenario. Mr. Wells said it’s a hit or miss. Mr. Czarnecki has had experience where the moisture level was lower from the beginning.
Mr. Goldsholl asked for figures for the down side of waiting to install the carpet. Mr. Wells said it would be noisy, dusty and then entail more moving costs. He added that most of what is to move into the new section will be in its final resting spot. Mr. Williams cautioned that leaving a concrete floor will create a dust issue that will get into the duct system. Mr. Wells said dust in a library is particularly serious because of it getting on all of the materials which would require extensive cleaning. Ms. Stokesbury questioned the cost of the additional testing. Mr. Czarnecki said $1,400.00 and that he’d applied to a special line item in the budget under special testing. Ms. Stokesbury questioned why this would be our expense. Mr. Wells said it had nothing to do with the pouring but with the high humidity. Ms.
Stokesbury continued that this was our risk and asked why it wasn’t a shared liability. Mr. Wells said it could be if there had been something wrong with the concrete mix. Mr. Czarnecki said all the tests have been done and can be looked at to gauge that everything was done correctly. Having said all this, Ms. Stokesbury is not comfortable letting the carpet warranties go out the window and the committee needs to do it right. Mr. Goldsholl said there were no good choices here and that each was a lose-lose. Ms. Stokesbury added that the committee is always doing things right and looking down the road for the duration. Ms. Carney questioned if this could have been discussed as a possibility in order to put preventatives in place before this. Mr. Wells said possibly in a case of different building flooring where it’d be more critical and that moisture contents have been within the limits in his experience.
Mr. Kuziak asked if there was consideration in concrete mixing or time period given a high moisture environment in order to achieve an acceptable surface. Mr. Wells said high spots, rain spots and ripples can be grinded off and resurfaced to reach an acceptable surface to apply to. Ms. Carney questioned if we waited and the moisture content was still high, could we then do the mitigation process. Mr. Wells said it would be harder given that all the materials were in there. Mr. Kuziak told of a current project that utilizes giant intake filters over the duct that need changing often where he sees nothing coming out. Mr. Williams said the point is to protect that system and that involves a cost. He continued that realistically it’d only be material cost coverage with the warranty that at best would be max $40,000.00.
Mr. Wells suggested adding more carpet than normal to the “attic stock” which is extra materials that are stored after the job is finished that are kept as replacement. Mr. Kuziak asked if the dye lot would match. Mr. Czarnecki said the carpeting materials have already been assembled and some shipped and additional would not exactly match.
Ms. Hornaday questioned how the use of “green” concrete is going to affect additional town projects. Mr. Czarnecki said the concrete uses fly ash which affects the length of time to cure for strength and has no impact on the moisture. Ms. Hornaday clarified the issue of what we’ve learned from this or have we. She questioned how much was budgeted for moving. Mr. Bartha said $58,000.00 was budgeted and the contract is for $48,950.00 with 50% paid after the first move and the other 50% paid at the end of the project. Ms. Hornaday questioned Mr. Wells’ suggestion of temporary flooring if we wait to install the carpet. Mr. Wells said it’d cost approximately an additional $10/square yard for approximately 2,600 square yards. Ms. Hornaday asked how much contingency was left. Mr. Bartha said
$335,000, which includes the additional amounts from the favorable bid results that have come in. Ms. Hornaday said that it may be penny wise and pound foolish to try to hope that the concrete would dry enough if we waited because all of these temporary fixes would add to the cost and we’d still be coming back to the remediation. Mr. Bartha noted that while walking away from the warranty was not desirable, the additional cost for the Koester system of roughly $150,000 would be to save, under the best scenarios, maybe $40,000 for materials under warranty. He lamented that there was no good option. Ms. Leonard reminded that the warranty only covers the cost of the material and not the labor or moving. Ms. Hornaday noted that the committee wanted to look at all the options and that only with option #1 would the warranty remain given the uncertainty that waiting would lower the moisture content percentage low enough to use option #2. She wanted to say for the record that
she is not prepared to give up the warranty. She continued that if anything goes wrong, the residents would be correct in being critical of that. Mr. Williams reminded that option #1 came with other costs not noted on the handout such as previously noted. Mr. Wells said the price to replace all the carpet would still be less than the cost of the Koester System of remediation. Mr. Williams added that this discussion is assuming the carpet will fail, which doesn’t necessarily mean it will. He added that he wished Mr. Boos had been in attendance in order to offer his expertise and that he didn’t want to speak for him. Ms. Leonard summed that we are trying to spend a lot of money for something that may not happen. Mr. Wells added that typically when a carpet fails, it doesn’t fail everywhere. Ms. Leonard said this had to be taken into consideration that it wouldn’t be the whole building that would fail and it’s a nice warranty but it doesn’t cover
that much.
Ms. Carney questioned if contingency money could be put aside in the case of failure. Mr. Bartha said the Town wouldn’t reserve project funds in reserve, because any leftover monies would be used to buy down our long term debt. Failure, in say five years, would go through the normal capital budget process. Mr. Wells asked whether a maintenance budget for the building at the end of the project would be calculated. Mr. Williams said yes, but it depends on the nature of the work and the contracts that are devoted to which aspect.
Mr. Kuziak gave the three options: 1) we could take preventive action – Koester System plus the costs of time lost, mediating the structure to accommodate the added floor level, 2) move forward and lay the carpet down and negate a piece of the warranty which will then keep to the timeline or 3) delay and what is the cost of the delay and the benefit – the cost is dust and removal, time where things will be drier typically and is that cost benefit of delaying really worth it and how do you quantify it. Mr. Czarnecki said he needed to begin with the renovation of the old area. He also said delaying the carpet will only push it to a further date which will not subtract from the timeline. It will add more time though as the mover will have to move the materials in and out an additional time in order for the
floorer to lay the carpet. Mr. Wells reminded that there are things that will stick up on the floor such as the seismic joints, if flooring is delayed, that could pose a potential safety threat. Mr. Czarnecki said the items could be identified and made safe. Mr. Bartha said he could speak with the movers to get an idea of what effects delaying the move could have as well. Mr. Czarnecki said the installation should take approximately 10 days. Ms. Vocelli would like to keep services going, especially the children’s storytime, where she could use carpet remnants as an interim flooring material. She also looked to the shelving being delivered and installed and then having to be taken down again in 6 months. Currently the carpet is placed around the shelving which removes the possibility of flexibility and the new renovations will place the shelving on top of the carpet. Mr. Wells reminded that everything we discuss here has a price tag attached to it. Ms. Stokesbury questioned if
the contract with the shelving supplier states that flooring had to be in place before installation could take place. Mr. Wells can check that more carefully. Ms. Vocelli said a favorable test in five or six months would mean neither remediation option would be necessary. Mr. Williams said that the moisture content may not come down and we’d be looking at these options all over again. Mr. Kuziak said we could monitor the situation several months out and still support the decision to forgo the warranty vs. laying the carpet down now. This would win a path that is supportable and defendable. Mr. Williams said we could get a read and trend this. There would be a cost to read the moisture content probes. Ms. Hornaday likes Mr. Kuziak’s plan to try to see if the content would go down over time vs. laying down the carpet now as it would show that we did make an effort to avoid voiding the carpet warranty. Ms. Leonard reminded about the dust issue and was there a temporary fix
with the filters. Mr. Williams said there was a lot at issue. Mr. Czarnecki said this feedback will be discussed at the 9:30 AM construction meeting to try to forecast the ripple effects of a decision. Ms. Carney said these discussions reflect the committee’s commitment to acting for the best interest of the town and not just the money. Ms. Vocelli reminded to look out for the adverse health effects the dust will have on the patrons and staff by not covering the floor with carpeting.
Ms. Stokesbury questioned if the committee had to make a decision now. Mr. Wells said yes that Enterprise needed a direction. Mr. Bartha suggested asking the supervisor on the job to add to the list of potential costs that could be incurred by delaying the project as well as we may not have all the information for a decision this morning. Ms. Stokesbury questioned if the members could vote by email. Ms. Hornaday said no and Mr. Bartha said we could call a special meeting with a 48 hour notice. Mr. Wells felt we had enough information. Mr. Williams questioned if there was a cost to inventorying the carpet that we’ve ordered and if there’d be a problem getting a temporary Certificate of Occupancy without the floor cover. Mr. Wells said he didn’t see a problem but the ceramic tile would have to be down as
well as the bathrooms finished.
Ms. Stokesbury had difficulty understanding how a contractor could not anticipate and account for a problem like this. Mr. Wells and Mr. Czarnecki both said that there was nothing wrong with the concrete. Mr. Williams said it was not in the workmanship but in the environmental conditions. Mr. Czarnecki said the test of the concrete showed it at or above the designed strength and concrete will cure over a lifetime. Ms. Stokesbury noted that we’re looking at a possible six figure solution on our nickel and is leaning towards waiting.
Ms. Hornaday said that people were going to expect a little inconvenience during the construction. She requested that the minutes be very clear as to what is voted on this morning. Ms. Hornaday liked Mr. Kuziak’s suggestion that we wait to lay the carpet while checking the moisture content to show that we made an effort to avoid losing the carpet warranty portion for adhesion. Mr. Bartha reminded that waiting could bring down the moisture content enough to use option #2 – Versashield System. He added that ideally we would wait until the moisture level would fall to where we could apply the carpet without remediation and the cost of deferring. Ms. Stokesbury asked Mr. Czarnecki if he was comfortable with option 2. He said he was and the material came in rolls which could be laid out and the seams taped with the
carpet then placed on top. Mr. Bartha reiterated that waiting could result in unknown additional costs and project impacts in order to preserve a warranty valued, in the most favorable scenario, at $40,000.00. Mr. Kuziak said that he’d actually like to take the position to move forward and put down the carpet knowing that we’ve explored every option and that it doesn’t make sense mathematically to wait. He was really interested in the timeline and how the delay would affect it and hoped Mr. Czarnecki would have that answer but did not. Mr. Williams reminded too that he’d have to go back to the cleaning people as they were not being paid to clean an unfinished space and to consider that aspect. Ms. Leonard agreed with Mr. Kuziak and added that to Ms. Carney’s concern that the committee was charged to serve the residents. Ms. Leonard added that the minutes will reflect that the committee has hashed out the monies and that it doesn’t make
sense to delay for just a marginal return on a warranty which really doesn’t give you a 100% replacement on the carpet. She summed that the math doesn’t make any sense to delay. Mr. Bartha said the $40,000.00 amount would represent what the manufacturer would optimally return towards the replacement cost of the carpet alone and did not include all the other costs of labor or moving. He said we never had a warranty that would cover 100% of the cost of replacement. Mr. Williams said too it wouldn’t be the whole area but just in those areas that are failing. Ms. Stokesbury questioned if the cement would dry more slowly with the carpet on top of it. Mr. Czarnecki said yes. Mr. Wells said the Milliken material would be more porous to allow a quicker drying time. Ms. Stokesbury predicted there’d be a problem with the carpet sooner than ten years rather than later. Ms. Leonard said pieces could be replaced as needed with the carpet tiles as opposed to the roll
type. Mr. Kuziak said, with the large rolls, they come out and re-stretch the carpet to get the bubbles out. Ms. Hornaday called for a motion.
VOTE: Ms. Carney motioned, based upon the facts as presented, to lay down the carpet as planned, Ms. Leonard seconded and all agreed. None opposed or abstained. Mr. Goldsholl missed the vote as he left the meeting early.
VII. OTHER BUSINESS
None.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
VOTE: Mr. Kuziak motioned, Ms. Leonard seconded and all agreed to adjourn the meeting at 9:08 AM. None opposed.
________________________
Susan Gatcomb, Staff Person
_______________________
David Goldsholl, Secretary
| 
