AMENDED MINUTES BOARD OF SELECTMAN SPECIAL MEETING OF
JANUARY 22, 2009
The Board of Selectmen held a Special Meeting on Thursday, January 22, 2009 at 8:00 a.m. in the Alexandria Room of the Edmond Town Hall, 45 Main Street, Newtown, CT
to discuss the high school expansion project, rebid vs. redesign.
PRESENT: First Selectman Borst, Selectman Mangiafico, Selectman Rosenthal
ALSO PRESENT: Board of Education Chair Elaine McClure, Board of Education members Kathy Fetchick, David Nanavaty, Kathleen Chrystie, Richard Gaines, Anna Wiedemann and Superintendent of Schools Dr. Janet Robinson. Also present were Board of Finance Chair John Kortze, co chair James Gaston, Legislative Council Chair Will Rodgers, co chair Fran Pennarola, Public Building & Site Chair Robert Mitchell, co chair Jim Juliano and member Tony D’Angelo. Two members of the press were present and two members of the public.
First Selectman Borst called the meeting to order at 8:18 a.m. explaining that the purpose of the meeting is to clarify where we are and where we want to go as far as the high school expansion project.
Selectman Mangiafico expressed his concerns of the rebid process and his desire to have a discussion as to where the rebidding process will lead. Should we rebid sooner, as soon as next month, or later, possibly July?
Kathy Fetchick stated that the opinion of the Board of Education is that the rebid should take place earlier as opposed to later. Construction can start in summer if the bids go out earlier. This will save four months off the entire schedule, bringing the project to a 19 month schedule, according to Morganti. The schedule, based on the rebids going out at the end of February, will have the rear addition complete by the end of August 2010; the gym would be completed the end of September and the entire renovation would be complete by the end of December 2010. In November 2008 it was said that it would take four to six months for the prices of commodities to come down, bringing the time of rebid to be April/May.
David Nanavaty stated Morganti and Fletcher Thompson are putting together the bid packages. The bid packages have been increased to thirty. The plan is for the bid packages to go out in February to be received in March. Mr. Nanavaty commented that the Board of Education had a meeting in November where these questions were presented to Morganti and Fletcher Thompson. At that time Public Building & Site very strongly recommended looking at the bid packages. The Board of Education has looked at all possible scenarios. What happens to the money appropriated by the voters if there is a redesign? The Board of Education has made the decision to rebid anticipating cost savings and will look at the contingency fund to cover any overbid. The number of alternates has been expanded,
giving more flexibility should the bids come higher than anticipated. Mr. Nanavaty is optimistic that increasing the bid packages and decreasing the project scope from 23 to 19 months will be cost savings. The pros of going for a rebid outweigh the cons.
Selectman Rosenthal has stated that the Board of Education has control over the education specs but the Selectmen have control of the project. Selectman Rosenthal has no assurance of saving $6,000,000. What is the intention of the Board of Education if $6,000,000 is not saved? Perhaps redesign should happen first. Redesigning after rebids come back without a $6,000,000 savings would cost even more time and money.
Kathleen Chrystie referred to the most recent time line. The bids would be released the end of February with a response time of the end of March. We will know where we stand by the middle of April, beginning of May.
Selectman Mangiafico is concerned about what will be seen when the rebidding process has ended. Mr. Mangiafico speculated that the rebids will not come back with a $6,000,000 savings. What if the rebids came back $4,000,000 over?
Kathy Fetchick responded that everything depends on the number that comes back. The first thing that would be looked at would be the alternates. There is an option to go back to the voters. It has not been decided what option will be taken. The alternates have not been prioritized because it all depends on the number. Ms. Fetchick agreed, when questioned by Selectman Mangiafico, that if the rebids came in $4,000,000 over the Board would attempt to strip the alternates out of the project, not to be done again, until the project was down to $38.8 million, if it is possible to do that. When asked what would happen if the project could not be brought to the $38.8 million price, Ms. Fetchick responded the Board could either go back to the voters or the project could be redesigned. If
too much of the project is redesigned the architects would need to be rebid also. If there was a new architect the State would view it as two separate projects meaning the Town wouldn't get State reimbursement for the work that has already been done.
Selectman Mangiafico believes there will be a problem going back to the voters.
David Nanavaty stated that if the overage is small enough the project may still be able to be done taking into consideration the contingency fund. The last option is doing a redesign. The questions being asked cannot be answered satisfactorily until the rebids are back. Morganti suggested increasing the number of bid packages to allow smaller companies to bid, hopefully saving in the long run. The State requires standard wage cost; those costs will not go down. The only savings will be in the material. The State Traffic Commission has not revealed if the driveway portion of the expansion must be done. There is a question with the State economy and the new President if there will be any money coming into states for infrastructure. There is no pressing need to change the
configuration of the High School driveway if Exit 11 interchange is not redone by the State.
Selectman Rosenthal stated that not doing the driveway now is not considered a savings because it will need to be done someday. Exit 11 will be redesigned.
David Nanavaty commented that when Exit 11 gets done the Town, the attorneys and legislators can work with the state to can see if they can free up some state monies to help assist the town in modifying the driveway.
Selectman Rosenthal stated that the voters voted for a $38.8 million project that included a driveway that would cost $1.5 million.
First Selectman Borst stated that he feels if the state wants the high school driveway moved they should share in the cost.
Selectman Mangiafico stated that the driveway is the biggest alternative at $1.5 million and was part of the project presented to the voters on April 22, 2008; it is part of the project. If the State paid for the driveway or said the driveway didn't need to be done the project would be $38.8 million minus the $1.5 million. The identification of the driveway as an alternate does not change the project.
Richard Gaines stated the voters authorized the Town to spend $38.8 million on the project not excluding funding from any other source.
Selectman Rosenthal responded that the total cost of the project is $38.8 million plus the architect’s fee. Any reimbursements do not increase the amount that can be spent; it comes off the $38.8 million there is to spend. The bonding resolution states that reimbursements reduce the amount of money that the tax payers have to pay.
John Kortze stated that bonding resolution of $38.8 million is all inclusive. The architect fees were handled prior with a special appropriation. $38.8 million included everything. Legally, the way the resolution was written the driveway doesn’t have to be done. Morally, it has been represented to the Town.
Selectman Mangiafico stated the Town has the legal right to not do everything that was in the resolution. However, he believes there is a problem if there are material changes made such as athletic fields, classroom and a culinary room. The voters approved the
$38.8 million based on what they read; changes to that will not be supported by Selectman Mangiafico. Is the purpose of identifying the alternates to be able to remove them from the project? If the bids come back substantially higher than $38.8 million and alternates are removed but the project is still in excess of $38.8 million, what is the Boards intension?
Kathleen Chrysie answered one reason to have the alternates is in case something needs to be taken away. Also, alternates allow the project to be done on a phased approach. The consultants felt some projects would get better bids if they were separate.
Selectman Rosenthal stated it is not fine if alternates are removed and then brought forward at a later date.
Kathleen Chrystie explained that alternates can be kept in the project, not removed, and kept as a Phase I, Phase II or Phase III with a sum total of $38.8 million.
Selectman Mangiafico doesn’t have a problem with that as long as it is within the $38.8 million.
Bob Mitchell stated the alternates are being bid now and need to be accepted or rejected within 30 days. If a line item is rejected it needs to be rebid. If this project comes in at $38.8 million without the alternates then the alternates cannot be accepted; they have to be accepted at the same time.
Kathy Fetchick questioned if the alternates can be bid at a later date? Bob Mitchell answered as long as it falls within the $38.8 million.
Selectman Mangiafico stated his concern is that the bids will come back high, leaving a project without alternates. The voters approved for $38.8 million for the entire project.
Morganti has not come back with what they anticipate the project to come back at.
Kathleen Chrystie said that two or three months from now we will know what the numbers are and it will be decided if the project will go forward or if it will be redesigned. The Town deserves to see what the next three months brings. To stop the bid process now is making a decision without the facts.
Selectman Mangiafico stated the Board of Education is taking a risk related to what happens when the bids come back. Will the Board to go back to the voters?
Mr. Nanavaty answered that the Board has different opinions. Mr. Nanavaty believes $38.8 million is the number but stated he might change his mind if the bids come in a little higher, at, for example $39.8 million. That might be more acceptable to the voters. The Board of Education can speculate as to what the bids will come back at. The Board decided on a rebid package and believes there will be substantial savings.
Selectman Rosenthal asked how big the contingency is on the project. Bob Mitchell replied the construction contingency is $1,686,000; the building contingency is $843,000.
Kathleen Chrystie noted that the materiality of the delta between the bids that come back and $38.8 million will have to be looked at to see if it warrants another community vote or if the delta is too large and it will be redesigned.
Selectman Mangiafico and Selectman Rosenthal are not inclined to go back to the voters. Selectman Rosenthal stated he is not likely to vote for more money.
Kathy Fetchick noted that redesign is the last thing they want to do.
Elaine McClure agrees that it would be premature to do anything before the bids come back and it would be difficult to go back to the voters.
Selectman Mangiafico inquired again what the Board of Educations position is if the bids come back high?
Kathleen Chrystie again answered that it depends on what the bids come back at. If it is a small enough difference the Board would consider going to the voters.
Will Rodgers asked if the Board was striving to avoid going back to the voters. The Board answered yes, they were.
John Kortze stated there is a fiduciary responsibility to look forward. There are two scenarios: The bids will come in under the $38.8 million or the bids will come in over. Mr. Kortze expects the bids to come in over. If the Board of Education requires more money it will need to be approved by the Board of Finance, the Legislative Council and the Board of Selectmen, which will create a time problem. The Board of Selectmen have said that they are not likely to approve more money. Mr. Kortze stated that you need to take into consideration how many people changed their vote to no for the second vote to have it come down.
Bob Mitchell indicated that all trades will need to come in at 8% for the rebid and the Board of Education should have a Plan B.
Kathy Fetchick stated that the documents are at the state for review today. The plan is to put the rebids out the end of February because there needs to be weeks of advertisement. It will take a few weeks to get the bids back. The numbers should be in by April.
Jim Juliano stated his personal opinion is he does not believe there will be $6 million saved on the rebids. The labor will remain the same but the contractors may not want to make as much as he did in better times. Mr. Juliano said he wouldn’t want to go to the voters for $2,000,000.
Will Rodgers questioned if the project exceeds a certain dollar amount would the state consider it a new project. Kathy Fetchick explained that the state considers this a $47 million project. If the redesign cost more than 10% ($4.7 million) the Board would have to rebid the architect. If a new architect takes on the project the state would consider it a new project.
Bob Mitchell stated that LEED certification has been deferred by a year. Almost everything in the new building is LEED certified.
Will Rodgers is very leery of designating contingency at the early stages of construction.
Selectman Rosenthal moved to adjourn at 9:40 a.m. Selectman Mangiafico seconded. All in favor.
Public participation was held after the adjournment at the request of the Board of Education.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATON:
Po Murray, 38 Charter Ridge Road, Newtown expressed hope that all the Boards can work together to get this done. Ms. Murray spoke of the increase in students in the coming years. A redesign will cost more money. Ms. Murray suggested a strategic plan for Fairfield Hills and the possibility of a new high school at Fairfield Hills.
Kathleen Chrystie moved to adjourn at 9:44 a.m. Seconded by Anna Wiedemann. All in favor.
Respectfully Submitted,
___________________________
Susan Marcinek, Clerk
| 
