AVON FREE PUBLIC LIBRARY RENOVATIONS & ADDITION PROJECT
BUILDING COMMITTEE MINUTES
DECEMBER 21, 2011
I. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM by Chairperson Diane Hornaday in the Avon Room, Town Hall Bldg. 1. Members present: Chairperson Diane Hornaday, Secretary David Goldsholl, Janet Stokesbury, Diane Carney, Barbara Leonard, J. Tad Kuziak and Scott Boos. Members absent: none. Also in attendance were Assistant Town Manager Steve Bartha, Director of Public Works Bruce Williams, Library Director Virginia Vocelli, Enterprise Builders Project Engineer Wayne Czarnecki and Design Consultant Janis Newell.
II. MINUTES OF PRECEDING MEETING – November 16, 2011
Ms. Stokesbury requested the 4th sentence of page 2 be clarified to read “…questioned if the 1.5% was a good interest rate for the purchase of the debt.” Mr. Boos questioned if he indeed was the one who made the statement at the bottom of the same page regarding egress and the certificate of occupancy. He did not request that any changes be made.
VOTE: Mr. Goldsholl motioned, Ms. Leonard seconded and all agreed to accept the November 16, 2011 as amended. Mr. Kuziak abstained as he was absent from the meeting.
III. COMMUNICATION FROM AUDIENCE
Ms. Vocelli reported that the new part of the library had its opening November 28th. Feedback from the community has been very positive – good feelings, liking the look and looking forward to the completion of the rest of the building. She added that the hard work of the members has paid off. Ms. Leonard was present for the kindergartners obtaining their first library cards and saw the delighted response of the children, parents and teachers.
IV. COMMUNICATION FROM COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Mr. Goldsholl noted a friend’s difficulty with the book drop door in catching his finger. Ms. Vocelli tried the opening herself and relayed that it didn’t have any sharp edges but the spring was still tight being new. Mr. Wells said the old type would leak. Mr. Goldsholl cautioned Ms. Vocelli to keep an eye for future incidents.
Ms. Carney expressed her concern with the women’s bathroom. She said that after all the discussions around tile or wall hung toilets, she finds the sinks and limited space between them for purse placement dismal and wondered who chose those sinks. Mr. Wells said it was he and they were ones that were normally installed on his projects. Ms. Carney added that they’d be difficult to clean with so little space and felt we could have done better. Ms. Stokesbury noted that two of four sinks at Thompson Brook were not working. Ms. Vocelli said they were working on adjusting and demonstrating items. Mr. Wells suggested some above sink mounted shelves for items as a possible solution. Ms. Vocelli noted too that paper towel dispensers would be added to the women’s bathroom. Ms. Hornaday suggested in addition to
shelves, include hooks as well to keep patrons from placing purses on the floor. Ms. Carney summed that otherwise the new section looks lovely.
Mr. Goldsholl questioned how long the parking lot lights remained on after closing. Ms. Vocelli said until midnight. She added that the flag light stays on all the time. Ms. Vocelli said that people continue to drop books off after closing. Ms. Stokesbury questioned if there’d be a light by the drive thru book drop. Ms. Vocelli said there were a couple of them. Mr. Kuziak questioned if the wireless internet gets shut off at night for instance as a way to keep people off the parking lot. Ms. Vocelli said no that it is connected by cable and would have to turned on and off manually.
Mr. Wells is investigating window treatments to help offset glaring sunlight that manifests itself inside the library several times per day. He had hoped that the tinting of the window glass would alleviate that but it wasn’t enough. Ms. Hornaday suggested looking at the curtains at the Farmington Savings Bank for ideas as one could still see out the windows when they were closed. Mr. Williams said to look at the curtains in Building 5 as well.
V. UPDATE AND REPORT FROM a. Construction Manager, b. Architect – Roof-Water Issued Review
Mr. Czarnecki reported that demolition of the existing area is well underway with under slab utilities. The second floor is ripped out and structural steel is being installed. Ductwork rough-in is being installed with fire protection rough-in to begin the week of the third. Fencing around the courtyard has been installed. Mr. Bartha referred to an e-mail that was not included in the agenda for concrete additive that will prevent the issue with the concrete moisture content we had in Phase I. The amount will be just over $1,400. Mr. Boos questioned the flooring that will be applied over the concrete. Mr. Czarnecki said carpet, tile in the bathrooms and a small amount of VCT. He said they were going to go with another product but had trouble getting it. Mr. Boos questioned if a moisture test would be given. Mr. Czarnecki
said with the Barrier 1 product there was no need for the test. Mr. Boos countered that we were spending $1,400 and would be curious to see if it works. Mr. Czarnecki said the Barrier 1 was a guaranteed product and offered to show Mr. Boos the literature.
Mr. Kuziak questioned if there were any surprises in the demolition of the existing part. Mr. Czarnecki said the floor was a little rough in some parts and the framing looked good. Mr. Wells said the only area that drew concern was with the second floor existing concrete. He said it had some undulations and wasn’t sure anything needed to be done about it and that it did not present a structural concern at all as it did not display cracks. Mr. Wells can have the structural engineer take a look at it too. Ms. Stokesbury questioned if the Barrier 1 product gets poured over existing concrete. Mr. Czarnecki said no that it’s mixed at the factory and then will be newly poured concrete at the site.
Mr. Goldsholl asked if the project was on time and on budget. Mr. Czarnecki still has the weather delays and has not been able to pick up much time on those. Mr. Boos said this needs to be addressed and could be at the end of the job when he advises request compensation for the impact. Mr. Goldsholl referred to this as item #087 on the potential change order form.
Mr. Wells reported that the circulation desks vendor received the shop drawings and approved and sent them back to us and are on schedule. He added too that we saved $1,000 by taking out the line item for moving the existing reference desk which Mr. Williams took care of.
Mr. Wells discussed the roof water problem with the members. He showed a rendition of adding a small roof canopy that will take care of the water near the door. Ms. Carney questioned retaining the door as she and Ms. Hornaday thought it’d be removed. Mr. Wells said you’d still need the canopy to alleviate the water flow whether the door was removed or not. Mr. Bartha said the door would still be useful even as an emergency exit. Mr. Wells said it was a discussion but a decision had not yet been made. Mr. Williams said through discussions with the building official the door wouldn’t be needed but why would the town spend the money to brick it up. Mr. Wells said it still could be useful for a staff entrance but people accessing the book drop from that sidewalk would still be subject to the roof runoff. Mr.
Williams suggested getting a price to tear up the sidewalk past the bookdrop, brick the door, install a scupper and plumb it for drainage. Ms. Stokesbury asked why we couldn’t leave the sidewalk. Mr. Williams asked why you would want to with it icing up. Ms. Stokesbury asked if we needed the door for an emergency exit. Ms. Hornaday felt having too much there (the roof canopy) would visually interfere with the lines of the building. Mr. Wells said to look at the scupper that is on the guttering left next to the original main entrance. Mr. Kuziak questioned what will happen with the snow such as build up or ice dams. Mr. Wells thought not because of the installation of the ice and water shield over everything when the roof was put on. Mr. Goldsholl mentioned the heating element that is supposed to be installed. Mr. Bartha corrected that it was to be installed in the back of the building, not at this location on the front. Ms. Stokesbury asked if you could keep the door, keep
the sidewalk, install the scupper and pipe it under the sidewalk as a less expensive option. She was reluctant to tear out what was existing. Mr. Bartha reminded of water overshooting the drain and icing the sidewalk where patrons would go to access the book drop from that end of the building. Ms. Vocelli cautioned that community groups would be told not to use that door after hours but use the main entrance. Ms. Vocelli said that she has observed that a hard rain will shoot right over the current scupper.
Ms. Hornaday suggested the members have a clear consensus and clearly there would be additional costs to deal with it. Mr. Goldsholl questioned if the members needed to see numbers before they made a decision. Mr. Boos said that no matter what, you were going to have to do some site work. Mr. Goldsholl said the consensus was that we did not want to construct the canopy roof suggested by Mr. Wells. He continued that we really didn’t have all the costs and options to make a decision. Mr. Boos said removing the door will eliminate a lot of problems. Mr. Williams said parts of the sidewalk would have to be removed anyway to accommodate the pipes leading to a dry well or basin. Ms. Stokesbury suggested we get a cost to brick up the door and take out a part or the entire sidewalk. She added that they’re already
there and that she’s not quick to rip them all out. Mr. Kuziak said the ripping out would lead to additional costs such as landscaping. Mr. Boos surmised that each option would be under $10,000. Ms. Carney suggested the members concentrate on what is the best solution for the corner – one that is aesthetically pleasing, provides a solution and that a decision should be made. Ms. Hornaday asked the builder for his opinion. Mr. Czarnecki simplified what he would do: 1) there’s a need for a scupper, 2) leaving the door will create future problems with the seals so remove it and 3) remove the sidewalk to the book drop and add grass so it can drain to a yard drain or dry well. Ms. Hornaday reiterated that water problems are huge problems. Mr. Goldsholl agreed to rely on the people who know what they’re doing.
VOTE: Ms. Carney motioned to accept the builder’s suggested option to mitigate the roof water by bricking the door, removing sidewalk from the main entrance to the book drop, adding a scupper and leader that drains underground to a dry well or yard drain and add either stone or landscaping or a combination of both along the base of the wall where the sidewalk was removed, Mr. Goldsholl seconded and Ms. Leonard, Mr. Kuziak, Mr. Boos and Ms. Hornaday agreed. Ms. Stokesbury opposed. None abstained.
Mr. Wells discussed the courtyard drain issue. He said the geothermal system does not allow him to do very much so he is proposing to put yard drains in the corners that will have a 12” or 18” perforated pipe that will go down to where the stone is near the foundation. They will not be connected to the footing drain but will percolate the water down that disperses like other ground water. This arrangement is to mitigate heavy storms because water came into the building before the corner joints were sealed and is not happening now.
VI. OLD BUSINESS a. Project Budget Update, b. Approval of Invoices, c. Review of Potential Change Order Log
Mr. Bartha referred to three invoices that were not included in the agenda or on the budget update. He said we had crossed the $5,000,000 mark in the building so we are 77% expended on the building side and crossed the 50% margin on the contingency and have $191,236 left uncommitted. The town received the first $500,000 of the grant December 5th and will probably be ready to apply for the next $400,000 by the end of January. Ms. Stokesbury questioned if the Builder’s Risk Insurance was still going to come in over budget. She asked if it was because the construction was taking longer. Mr. Bartha said it was probably under budget to begin with and CIRMA would credit us back if we substantially completed the project by the end of March. Mr. Boos questioned the RIS invoice and why $2,000 had been subtracted
from the total. Mr. Bartha said Ms. Newell would not approve amounts for items that had not yet been received.
VOTE: Mr. Goldsholl motioned, Mr. Kuziak seconded and all agreed to add the following invoices to the agenda: 1) FedEx Invoice 772269693, dated 12/12/11 for $17.67, 2) Real Integrated Systems Invoice 4481, dated 12/20/11 for $6,276.50 and 3) John Watts Associates Invoice 91339, dated 12/16/11 for $6,096.36. None opposed or abstained.
Ms. Stokesbury questioned the problem with some fabrics. Ms. Newell said there was trouble with stain treatment streaking some fabric that was selected so the new fabric that could tolerate the stain treatment cost a little more than the original selection.
VOTE: Ms. Carney motioned, Mr. Kuziak seconded and all agreed to approve for payment the following invoices: Enterprise Builders, Inc. Application and Certificate for Payment #13, dated 11/30/11 for $308,103.00, Tuthill and Wells Architects, LLC Invoice #3937, dated 12/6/11 for $13,003.00, CIRMA Invoice #LP041231, dated 12/5/11 for $1,761.00, William B. Meyer, Inc. Invoice #COM-1159-1/1, dated 12/2/11 for $23,251.25, GC Signs Invoice #1826, dated 11/25/11 for $775.00, Day Pitney LLP Invoice #10374-001340,001390, dated 11/23/11 for $11,079.44, FedEx Invoice #769335155, dated 11/14/11 for $20.44, Bartholomew Contract Interiors Invoice #30896, dated 12/9/11 for $20,099.00, Real Integrated Systems Invoice #4461, dated 11/23/11 for $22,396.00, Tucker Library Interiors LLC Invoice #7180, dated 11/14/11 for $28,001.89,
Robert H. Lord Invoice #27379A, dated 12/18/11 for $5,638.24, Insalco Corporation Invoice #2294, dated 12/8/11 for $8,553.40, Omni Date Invoice #7467, dated 11/17/11 for $12,882.44, John Watts Associates Invoice #91339, dated 12/16/11 for $6,096.36, Real Integrated Systems Invoice #4481, dated 12/20/11 for $6,276.50 and FedEx Invoice #772269693, dated 12/12/11 for $17.67 for a total of $467,954.63. None opposed.
Mr. Bartha presented the potential change order log and change orders that have been approved since the last meeting and asked for questions. He said the total proposed change orders to this point add to $72,471 with an approved amount of $25,763. Mr. Goldsholl questioned if he deducted the potential change order amount of $72,471 from the contingency of $191,236 that would leave a balance of $119,000 in the contingency. He then asked what impact the “0” amounts, the unknowns would have on the remaining contingency. Mr. Boos questioned the $25,763 figure on the potential change order log and the current change order amounts that Mr. Bartha added to the agenda that are not reflected in the budget yet. Mr. Bartha said the $25,763 figure was reflected in the $72,471 with that difference being scrutinized and some
of the figures coming in as future credits thus subject to modification. Mr. Bartha is concerned with some issues: the roof which he feels is coming in under what he anticipated and the weather delays that have to be addressed. Mr. Goldsholl continued that given all the information as well as the “squishy” numbers, we are still okay with the budget. Mr. Boos simplified that basically we had three months to figure out what to do with $120,000. He posed should we save it or do we spend it. Mr. Bartha said he was not alarmed but anxious at this point and is cautiously optimistic. Mr. Boos said if all goes the same then there’s going to be money left over after the job. Ms. Hornaday would like to say we brought it in under budget and cautioned that if there are things we need, like the window treatments, then we’ll spend it but not spend it because it’s there. Ms. Carney agreed. Monies turned in means there is less to bond. Mr. Goldsholl recalled that
monies for the “pretty” things were going to come from donated funds and the town’s monies would go towards the structure. Ms. Vocelli said the referendum money cannot be used for computers and a lot of the fundraising money will go to technology or the puppet theatre.
Mr. Boos questioned the discrepancy in the amount in change order #51. Mr. Czarnecki said these figures are compared to Mr. Wells’ and then adjusted. Ms. Stokesbury questioned change order #’s 52 and 54 asking if the Library Board was going to pay them. Ms. Vocelli said Enterprise Builders will bill them separately. Ms. Hornaday asked if there were any other questions.
VII NEW BUSINESS a. State Grant Update, b. As Built Mapping Requirement, c. Potential FFE Change Orders for LBC Review & Action
Mr. Bartha previously discussed the State Grant under section VI.
Mr. Bartha explained that the as-built mapping was a requirement by the planning and zoning department for the issuance of the partial certificate of occupancy. He described it as a survey of where everything that’s been built complies with what the planning commission approved. The engineering department received three quotes and chose Hodge to do the survey. Mr. Goldsholl questioned why the engineering department didn’t do the survey. Mr. Bartha and Mr. Williams explained that they couldn’t do it in a timely fashion as they were working on many other projects. Mr. Bartha said it was unbudgeted but part of the planning department’s requirement that was never put it as a line item and will come out of contingency.
Mr. Bartha mentioned that the former Assistant Town Manager Blythe Robinson was invited to the library’s grand opening and would attend if her schedule permitted.
Ms. Newell discussed FFE change orders totaling $10,662.67. Item #1 showed the need to locate PAC near the floor outlet because the layout was slightly different from the plan. Total $356.97. Item #2 was for top tie struts because the shelving could not be “shot” to the floor because the concrete was too thin to accommodate it properly. Total $2,585.70. Item #3 added a table and lounge chair to be refinished and reupholstered and the additional cost of fabric for 8 lounge chairs. Total $1,645.00. Item #4 included additional power outlets and change in the number of end panels. Total $1,899.00. Item #5 was for 10 new book trucks omitted from the original bid. Total $4,176.00. Ms. Carney thought the price for the book trucks was high. Ms. Vocelli and Ms. Newell said most of the book trucks they had were in poor
condition. Mr. Boos questioned if the book trucks were in the bid documents. Ms. Newell said no and the figure was based on a State contract purchase which is essentially a pre-bid. Mr. Boos questioned the process and suggested that he submit quotes for the book trucks. Ms. Newell cautioned that the quotes were about to expire as the contracts are coming up on two years old and felt it was a good buy right now. Ms. Hornaday questioned Item #2 and if the price was for one item. Ms. Newell said no that it was for all of them. Ms. Hornaday suggested the items could be approved with the exception of item #5 which could be re-bid with a ceiling of $4,176. Mr. Bartha queried that the vendor Tucker could owe us a credit for labor not performed for “shooting” the shelving into the floor as originally agreed. Ms. Newell said that it really wasn’t that time consuming. Mr. Wells said that perhaps it could have been figured into the new quote to attach the shelving to the top
instead.
VOTE: Ms. Carney motioned, Mr. Boos seconded and all agreed to accept the FFE change order request submitted by Ms. Newell with the exception of Item #5 which is subject to re-bid not to exceed $4,176. None opposed.
Ms. Newell noted that originally we were under the FFE budget by $36,000 and the change orders still kept it under by $25,000.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
VOTE: Mr. Kuziak motioned, Mr. Goldsholl seconded and all agreed to adjourn the meeting at 8:50 PM. None opposed.
________________________
Susan Gatcomb, Staff Person
________________________
David Goldsholl, Secretary
| 
