2010-03-11-CPC-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

3. Executive Session – (for the purposes of discussing land acquisition) – Mr. Cohen moved to enter into Executive Session for the purposes of discussing matters relative to land acquisition. Members were polled and unanimously voted to enter Executive Session at 2:30 pm. They returned to open session after a unanimous vote to end Executive Session at 3:02 pm. The CPC then returned to its regular meeting. 4.Town Offices Building Renovation – The following proponents were in attendance to present new information on the Town Offices Building Project: Mr. Mark Barrett, Project Manger, Mr. Pat Goddard, Director of Facilities, Mr. Carl Valente, Town Manager, and Ms. Linda Vine, Assistant Town Manager. Mr. Barrett distributed a 7-page document outlining the costs of the project. Mr. Valente commenced the discussion, noting that there had been a small change in the cost of the project since the CPC had received the previous breakdown on March 9, 2010. He said the cost estimate was now $1,823,881, (up from $1,821,509). The cost estimate represented a 75% design figure, with 65% of the work representing code and ADA upgrades and 35% representing office th reorganization – a breakdown which the CPC had requested at their February 4 meeting. Mr. Valente then spoke to the issue of the project’s development, stating that a process had been followed similar to the process followed for capital projects. There were a number of questions regarding the 65%/35% split, with members questioning how the project would change if the 35% were not funded. Mr. Barrett responded to these questions, explaining that the two aspects of the project were inseparable, and that the cost division did not represent two separate scopes of work. There was a discussion of the fire suppression system, which Mr. Barrett said was non-existent in the 1971 portion of the building. Ms. Fenollosa asked if employees were at risk in that section of the building, to which Mr. Barrett responded that they were not. Mr. Barrett then explained the code and ADA upgrades, and how they are specifically triggered by the overall cost of the project. The project cost, he said, exceeds one third of the value of the building, and therefore triggers the legal requirement for code and ADA upgrades. All the code and ADA work in the project description, he noted, was legally required. Ms. Weiss tried to separate certain project costs, and asked Mr. Barrett about the cost of one bathroom and one counter, to which he responded that these costs would be difficult to extrapolate. In response to a question from Mr. Kanter, Mr. Barrett explained that the present estimate is not quite at 75% design state. Mr. Kanter asked if there would be a need for an additional appropriation in order to get the project to bid, to which Mr. Barrett replied that there would not. 2