Minutes
Library Construction Committee
June 5, 2008
Present:
· From the Committee: Kelly Collins, Pam Czekanski, Joel Lindsay, Roland Ochsenbein, John Rodenhiser, Chris Rogers, Mickie Simpson.
· From Lerner Ladds + Bartels: R. Drayton Fair, Aimee Lombardo, Nate
· From Daedalus: Bob White
· From Advisory Committee: Burt Shnitzler
Absent: Bill Strapko
A quorum was assembled. Roland called the meeting to order at 7:38 p.m.
Minutes from 4/3/08, 5/1/08, and 5/15/08 were approved (moved: Pam; second: John; unanimous in favor).
Invoices were handled as follows:
· Invoices with cover sheet dated April 30, 2008 (Daedalus #2896-080412 for $5,000; LL+B #06-0722 for $68,900.15) totaling $73,900.15 were approved (moved: Pam; second: John; unanimous in favor)
· Invoices with cover sheet dated May 31, 2008 (Daedalus #2896-080511 for $5,000; Daedalus #2896-080629 for $6,149.50; and LL+B #07-0722 for $48,776.81) were approved for payment minus $1,9776.81 in reimbursables on #07-0722 (moved: Pam; second: John; unanimous in favor). Kelly noted that Town Accountant Julie Costello had sent email questioning the markup on photocopies, the fact that the town (which is tax-exempt) was charged sales tax, and the markup of the sales tax. The Committee asked Richard to work with the architects’ office on these questions.
Roland addressed the release of the latest budget figures from the OPM’s office. Richard, Drayton, and Aimee had a conference call with the engineers, after which the budget was produced. In an email memo covering the budget, Richard recommended modification or elimination of several elements. The Committee discussed each in turn:
· Roof. Proposal: “Delete the removal and reinstallation of the clay tile roofing, which according to Kelly is not currently leaking. This is a technically difficult and expensive thing to do, as the risk of breakage during the removal and storage process is high. We will include repairs to the roof where tiles are loose, and improvements to the flashing at the window heads.” The OPM and architects estimate this will save $120,000. Roland stated that he was not in favor of cutting corners on the roof restoration. The roof is original and has been subject to numerous patches over the years. Harold Brown, who was also present,
noted that the roof consists of rusted nails and broken tiles. The problem, he said, is finding contractors who know how to handle terra cotta tile. Drayton commented that reproduction or modern materials can’t be used in a historic restoration, and that a significant amount of money will be needed to restore the roof. He added that there will also be a problem insulating the roof, as any materials will add thickness, which will require custom tile or another solution to cover it. From a preservation perspective, Drayton said, we are not required to add insulation and it will only add expense. Roland recalled the town’s efforts in 2003 to secure restoration and repairs via a grant to the state Historic Commission, and when that failed the expansion project seemed the most likely way to accomplish the repairs. The grant application is in library files, and Kelly will see that the OPM’s and architects’ offices each get a
copy. This should help them to assess the true condition of the roof and windows.
· Repointing. The OPM and architects suggest not repointing 100% of the building, but only the parts that really need this attention (estimated at about 10%). Aimee noted that 100% repointing could actually damage the building.
· Pergola. Proposal: “Make the pergola/entrance canopy an “add alternate” in the bid package, which will be built if we get bids that are below the estimate.” Drayton noted the possibility of removing three bays from the entrance canopy, for a savings of $60,000. Pam wondered what the building would look like without the canopy, and noted that it’s a significant part of the design. Drayton and Roland agreed.
· Stone base. Proposal: “Make the stone base an add alternate as well, with the base case being a cementitious plaster finish (similar to stucco) on the exposed foundation wall. Note that this will be largely covered by landscaping.” In answer to Pam’s question about the amount saved, Drayton said it would be about $100,000.
· Eliminate the stone floor in the lobby and stone steps. Substitute carpet, possibly with a wood border to tie in with the original floors.
· Eliminate the irrigation system.
Drayton announced that Richard’s memo hadn’t disclosed that the security system was also omitted. The thought was to add a residential-type system (cost: about $10,000) later.
Aimee noted that smaller cuts were taken, too, such as elimination of gutters in the back (provided it can be done without water problems), reuse of some of the pavement on the half-circle drive, elimination of the 100% ice and water shield (making it 60% instead), eliminating some millwork (which the architects noted hasn’t been fully designed yet), cutting lightning protection, and cutting stone cleaning.
Drayton explained Add Alternates and Delete Alternates, saying that state law requires them to be done in the order listed. The Committee will have to prioritize. This will start fairly soon as bid documents are due at the end of July.
Drayton also noted that the obtained an independent cost estimate from A.M. Fogarty, which came in $100,000 higher than that done by Richard and the architects.
Discussion followed. The committee was not in favor of drastic cuts to the pergola, roof, and stone trim. Drayton suggested that the south side could be redesigned to eliminate dormers and other details in order to retain the pergola and roof. Bob White noted that the contingency (shown at $450,000) might decrease as drawings progress. Drayton recommends carrying a 7% contingency, at minimum.
Other budget items were discussed. Drayton noted that utility companies haven’t tended to backcharge municipal projects much, but in the current economy they may not be able to do this work at a reduced price. He also commented that bond costs have been low in years past, but again because of the economy this may no longer be the case. Bob White recommended budgeting for these items.
Roland requested that future iterations of the budget show separate lines for new construction and for renovation.
In other business, Roland announced that Richard has asked for a small team to focus on interiors. Interested people must be able to attend 4-6 daytime meetings over about a month, around October. Mickie and Kelly are interested. Joel said he might know someone who would be interested. Kelly added that the first meeting of the teen advisory board took place on June 2.
Roland summarized the Board of Appeals hearing and reminded the Committee that the hearing will continue on June 17. Richard has suggested that the LCC and Board of Library Trustees retain an attorney (a non-resident, and not Town Counsel) for that hearing. Discussion followed. Chris Rogers advised Roland to seek Jodi’s advice about this, and commented that the presence of lawyers changes the tone of any discussion. Chris believes that hiring an attorney for the next part of the hearing would be unwise, and that we should simply go back and see what develops. People who wish to challenge the project will do so regardless of who has a lawyer, he said. Pam countered that this attorney would be present as a resource, not necessarily as a speaker, and that other parties in this matter
have legal representation. Roland will take Chris’s advice and speak to Jodi. Roland also noted that the Trustees have called a meeting for Monday, May 9 to discuss this topic. The committee then had a general discussion of strategy for the next meeting with ZBA.
Roland announced that Kelly has drafted a letter for him to sent to MA Historical detailing changes to our project and asking if further documentation is needed given that we have moved from the vicinity of the 18th century potash works.
Roland noted that Panny Gerken is interested in taking the position on the committee that was recently vacated by Brent Gates. The committee regarded this favorably.
Next meeting was tentatively scheduled for June 26.
There being no other business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:21 p.m.
| 
