Town of North Stonington
SCHOOL MODERNIZATION BUILDING COMMITTEE (SMBC)
North Stonington New Town Hall
Monday February 6, 2017
Attendance: Sam Cherenzia, Pam Potemri, Jay Peterson, Mike Urgo, Bob Carlson, Dan Spring, Alice Zeeman, and Mike Anderson. Walt Mathwich, Mark Perkins, and Dave Sellins came after the call to order.
Architect (Quisenberry) was represented by Rusty Malik
Current stage of the project: Design development.
1. Call To Order: 7:02 pm.
2. Public Comment: No public present. Public contributed later (see #7 below).
3. Correspondence.
a. Mike Urgo received air sampling quality report from Eagle Environmental. PCBs are not currently present in the air in levels that would require action. We will continue to discuss how best to mitigate the PCB’s in the paint at NSES based on this information.
b. Mike Urgo E-mailed the SMBC members a current cash flow statement that is being prepared by the SMBC financing subcommittee. More funds may be available from savings in financing costs. The financing subcommittee is preparing a spreadsheet for tracking finances.
4. Invoice approvals.
a. Pam Potemri described the process they have worked out for invoice review and approval going forward.
b. The following invoices were submitted for approval to the SMBC. They were approved individually. All motions for approval were by Mark Perkins and seconded by Mike Anderson. All were approved unanimously (11-0-0) by the SMBC:
Invoice no. 185385....Suisman Shapiro Attorneys-At-Law....$1800.00
Invoice no. 16120013....Pawcatuck Roofing....$950.00
Invoice no. 9528....Quisenberry Arcari Architects....$243.00
Invoice no. 9531....Quisenberry Arcari Architects....$81.00
Invoice no. 9529....Quisenberry Arcari Architects....$106,365.00
Invoice no. 9530....Quisenberry Arcari Architects....$53,044.10
c. The following invoices have been paid. The SMBC approved them as a group. The motion for approval was by Mark Perkins and seconded by Mike Anderson. The motion passed unanimously (11-0-0):
Invoice no. 178873....Suisman Shapiro Attorneys-At-Law....$1755.00
Invoice no. 176209....Suisman Shapiro Attorneys-At-Law....$112.29
Invoice no. 184735....Suisman Shapiro Attorneys-At-Law....$690.00
Invoice no. 3359996....Superior Press Printing....$152.02
Invoice no. 5-446-87921....FedEx....$15.37
Invoice no. 5-476-87921....FedEx....$39.18
xxxx....Mike Urgo (travel reimbursement to state meeting)....$76.68
xxxx....Mike Urgo (travel reimbursement to state meeting )....$64.80
xxxx....Press On Sandwich Crafters LLC (food for visioning session on 11/07/2016) ....$300.00
xxxx....Buon Appetito (food for visioning session on 11/07/2016)....$500.00 The committee noted in further discussion that the two costs associated with the visioning session were for the 45+volunteers and teachers who spent the day in the workshop held to help us most efficiently design the buildings.
5. Minutes approval. Previous meeting minutes not ready for approval.
6. Architect presentation, status of studies and subcontracts.
a. Finishing application for wetlands and zoning. Application needs signature of first selectman and architect will pass to wetlands and zoning for approval.
b. Rusty is adding $3,500 for Environment Phase I review to Eagle Environmental contract as per the approval in 01/30/17 SMBC meeting.
c. SMBC voted in 01/17/17 meeting to approve architect hiring Welti Geotechnical for construction site borings. Discussed possibility of saving money by contracting directly instead of through architect.
d. Rusty received two proposals for traffic study letter of determination. He recommends choosing the lower cost study, which will be $7,600.
e. Discussed CLA contract. DEEP required increased site size and that increased the CLA cost by $5,000. That expense is a partial explanation for the unexpected cost (previous estimate) of their work. Subsequent direct cost budgeting has decreased the cost of the contract estimate by $5,000. The committee discussed whether to proceed with CLA or look for another consultant. Changing to another vendor at this time would be complicated, because CLA has already performed a number of services on the contract. Rusty pointed out that there are other known and potential sources of savings in his contract with us and these may offset much if not all of the unanticipated CLA expense.
7. Discussion on design/construction alternatives. Rusty discussed at length alternative options for the work, requesting and receiving SMBC input. Options are written into the construction subcontractor request for bids so that the project expense can be adjusted when the bids are received, and/or there are unspent contingency funds. Invited public in the person of Chuck Butremovic (school teacher by profession) was present and provided input during the discussion.
8. Communications. Nothing new for this meeting.
9. Future strategies. Will meet next week
10. Public comment. See #7 above. No additional comment.
11. Motion to adjourn from Dan Spring. Seconded by Mark Perkins. Adjourned at 8:48 pm by unanimous (11-0-0) vote.
| 