Minutes
Public Building Committee - Minutes - Feb 2, 2026
Feb 2, 2026
A public record published by the Town of Simsbury (simsbury-ct.gov). mySimsbury indexes it and makes it readable; it is not the official copy. View the original file.
1 PUBLIC BUILDING COMMITTEE TOWN OF SIMSBURY Minutes of the Regular Meeting February 2, 2026 Subject to Approval There being a quorum present, Chair Derr called the Regular Meeting of the Public Building Committee to order at 7:02 p.m., which was conducted in person in the Board of Education Conference Room at Simsbury Town Hall and via Zoom. PRESENT ☒ Mr. Michael Egan ☒ Mr. Lucian Dragulski ☒ Mr. Richard Derr ☒ Ms. Dagny Griswold ☐ Mr. John Salvatore ☐ Mr. Ryan Burns ☐ Mr. William Clegg ☒ Mr. David Moore GUESTS Arcadis: Zach Machold, Onsite Project Manager Simsbury Engineering Department: Thomas J. Roy, PE, Director of Public Works, Town Engineer; Adam Kessler, Deputy Town Engineer Simsbury Public Schools: Jason Casey, Director of Infrastructure & Technology; Neil Sullivan, Assistant Superintendent for Administration Jacunski Humes Architects: Andrew Whitehouse, Project Architect Minutes Recorder: Jessica Campbell, PBC Clerk and Administrative Secretary with the Simsbury Water Pollution Control Authority (WPCA) 1. PUBLIC AUDIENCE There were no public audience members or comments. 2. MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 5, 2026, REGULAR MEETING Mr. Moore made a motion to approve the January 5, 2026 Meeting Minutes. Mr. Egan seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. 2 3. LATIMER LANE RENOVATION a. Arcadis Report Mr. Machold reported that there were no major updates at this time. He noted that Arcadis’ final invoice was included on the agenda for approval. Mr. Machold explained that the project is nearing completion. Upon approval of the final invoice, Arcadis will be able to submit the final reimbursement request to the state, complete remaining minor audit preparation items, and formally close out the project. b. Arcadis Invoice # 36096064 Mr. Moore made a motion to approve the payment of Arcadis Invoice # 36096064, dated 01/06/2026, in the amount of $1,500.00. Mr. Egan seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Mr. Casey stated that there had been discussion regarding the selection of Tecton and Arcadis despite neither being the lowest bidder in the RFQ process. He noted that this is fairly common for this type of procurement, as proposals are evaluated based on factors beyond price. Mr. Casey explained that the purpose of the discussion was to ensure proper documentation of the reasons for the selections and to confirm that this information is included in the materials submitted to the State as part of its requirements. He added that an upcoming internal meeting is scheduled to further discuss the current status of the matter. Mr. Sullivan reported that a meeting is scheduled for Thursday, February 5, 2026, with Arcadis to review the remaining documentation needed. He stated that the purpose of the meeting is to clarify exactly what is required to submit the final documentation to the state. He noted that, as previously indicated, the project is approximately 99% complete. Chairman Derr explained, for the benefit of the committee, that the State of Connecticut requires a brief document reflecting the decision-making process related to the selection of the architectural firm for the Latimer Lane project. He clarified that the document is not intended to be a detailed explanation, but rather a summary or reflection of the considerations and comments made at the time of the selection, which occurred approximately three to four years ago. He noted that some discussion took place during the original selection process and that committee members who participated at that time may need to provide input if required. He acknowledged that John Salvatore was not present at the meeting, but confirmed that other members who were involved in the decision-making process remain available. Mr. Machold left the meeting at 7:08 p.m. 4. TOOTIN' HILLS PARTIAL ROOF REPLACEMENT a. Architect’s Report Mr. Whitehouse reported that the roof replacement work has been completed. He stated that the warranty has been issued by the installer, the manufacturer, and the skylight representatives. He noted that the contractor has submitted continuing insurance documentation and a consent of surety. Mr. Whitehouse explained that the only remaining required paperwork is the CHRO Notice of File Closure letter, which will allow for the release of a portion of the retainage. He added that one additional 3 documentation item is being reviewed by himself and Mr. Casey, and that the final payment requisition is anticipated to be ready by next month. b. Review RFP for Consultant or Forensic Roofing Engineer Chairman Derr reviewed the request for proposal for a forensic roofing and building envelope investigation, noting that copies were included in the meeting packet. He reported that H.B. Fishman & Co. was contacted and has submitted a proposed scope of work. He stated that he has reviewed the proposal and believes it meets the project’s needs. He emphasized that moving forward with the firm promptly would allow the investigation to begin and support timely closure of the project. Mr. Roy reported that the proposal amount is $16,000.00. He explained that while the request for proposal sought a lump-sum fee, he clarified with Fishman & Co. that the submitted amount is a not-to- exceed fee. He stated that the fee is based on an estimated number of hours at a rate of $175.00 per hour and that the firm’s project manager anticipates the total cost will likely come in below the $16,000.00 cap. He noted that this structure provides flexibility should there be any additions or modifications to the scope of services. He confirmed that the proposed scope includes all services requested in the original RFP. Mr. Egan asked whether the proposal requires the presence of a Kalwall representative and a roofing contractor during the investigation. He further inquired as to who would be responsible for coordinating those parties and bearing any associated costs. Mr. Roy stated that he does not anticipate any cost associated with Imperial Roofing’s participation, noting that the contractor has expressed interest in being present to address and defend its work. He reported that he spoke earlier that day with the Kalwall representative, who had expressed interest in visiting the site immediately. He explained that the site visit would need to be delayed until weather conditions improve and snow has cleared from the roof. He added that Kalwall similarly maintains confidence in its product and has potential solutions available. Chairman Derr requested clarification regarding comments in the proposal indicating that Fishman & Co. would be on site along with a factory representative from the Kalwall manufacturer. He noted that this involvement pertains to the investigation of the roof-mounted glass structures. He further stated that the proposal does not specify the involvement of a roofing contractor and expressed concern about including a party that may be associated with the underlying issue. Chairman Derr stated that he remains unsatisfied with the involvement of Imperial Roofing in the discovery phase of the investigation. He expressed concern about including a party that may be connected to the underlying issues being reviewed. He further discussed concerns related to the roof warranty process, noting that installation of the originally specified roof system would have required authorization and detailed approval from the manufacturer or warranty provider. He stated that, to his understanding, such coordination should have occurred between the manufacturer and Imperial Roofing. He added that previous attempts to obtain original installation details were not straightforward and required additional effort, which he indicated raises concerns regarding the overall process. Based on these concerns, Chairman Derr requested that the Town Engineer communicate directly with Fishman & Co. to discuss who should be present during the investigation and what roles each party would have. He suggested that separate meetings could be held, if necessary, with the architect and Imperial Roofing to better understand how the project reached its current condition. 4 He further noted that Fishman & Co. may need to consult with or engage an independent flashing or roofing expert, or a qualified architectural specialist, as part of the investigation if such expertise is not already included within their team. Mr. Moore noted that the contractor has an obligation to mitigate damages. He stated that having the contractor involved in the investigation is reasonable, as it allows the contractor to provide information regarding the installation and assist Fishman & Co. in verifying what work was completed. This participation could help distinguish between product failures and installation issues. He emphasized that contractor involvement should not interfere with or control the investigation, but rather support the process in an impartial manner. The goal is to resolve the roofing issues, not create conditions for potential litigation. He added that if the inspector or expert concludes that the work was improperly performed, a lawsuit may still result. Mr. Moore also raised concerns about the reliability of warranties, noting that a warranty may not be effective if the original installation was incorrect or if there is a product failure. He expressed caution about relying solely on documentation or warranty statements without confirming the actual condition of the roof. He reiterated that the existing RFP and the proposed contract with Fishman and Company are appropriate and support moving forward with the investigation. Mr. Moore indicated that the site work is unlikely to begin until March or April due to existing snow and ice conditions, which prevent safe access to the roof. He emphasized the importance of starting the investigation as soon as conditions allow in order to address the outstanding roofing issues. c. Review Proposal from H.B. Fishman & Co. Mr. Moore made a motion to approve the contract from H.B. Fishman & Co, dated 01/29/2026. The motion was seconded by Mr. Egan and passed unanimously. d. Review Imperial Pay Application #5 and #6 i. Application #05 Mr. Moore made a motion to approve payment of Application #05, dated 11/25/2025, in the amount of $6,510.00. The motion was seconded by Mr. Egan and passed unanimously. ii. Application #06 Mr. Moore made a motion to approve payment of Application #06, dated 01/21/2026, in the amount of $107,577.28. The motion was seconded by Mr. Egan and passed unanimously. Chairman Derr requested that Mr. Whitehouse provide a brief explanation regarding additional work on the project, specifically referencing a total of $81,008.59 in changes. Mr. Whitehouse clarified that the majority of this cost resulted from the owner’s request to incorporate canopy roofs around the perimeter of the larger roof area. Initially, these were excluded due to grant funding requirements. The change was made possible due to surplus funds and the positive progress of the project, ensuring consistent EPDM roofing across the building wing. Chairman Derr stated a drainage issue was identified on a small roof section near the building front, approximately 15’ by 30–35’, where water was pooling up to two inches deep. The area was not draining properly, and the existing scupper configuration may not be adjustable due to energy code requirements for insulation. Mr. Whitehouse indicated that corrective action may require stripping and reworking the roof, potentially exceeding initial cost expectations. 5 Mr. Whitehouse stated he will be providing a repair estimate, determining whether the issue should be added to the punch list or addressed before retainage is released, and assessing whether the $36,000.00 retainage will cover the potential repair costs. Mr. Casey, Mr. Sullivan, and Mr. Whitehouse left the meeting at 7:45 p.m. 5. SIMSBURY MEADOWS PERFORMING ARTS CENTER – BAND SHELL EXPANSION a. Progress Status Report Mr. Kessler provided an update on the project budget and financial status following the successful referendum. The current project budget stands at just over $3 million, with approximately $418,000.00 paid to date. Retainage is being held at $25,000.00 to $90,000.00, and the current contingency is $448,000.00, though upcoming additions are expected to reduce this amount. The project contract is currently valued at $2,507,851.00, with three change orders recorded to date. Mr. Kessler discussed the entry doors previously considered for modification due to glazing concerns. It was confirmed that the doors already include full glazing, and a $12,000.00 modification to match was deemed unnecessary. It’s recommended to deny PCO06. He went on to explain PCO09 covers tapping the Iron Horse to the hydrant with a 6-inch service, estimated at $107,000.00, which was below initial estimates. PCO10 involves the run from the hydrant to the building with a 4-inch service at $45,000.00. Both were recommended for approval, with minor paving considerations noted, and the contractor may self-perform certain portions if needed. Mr. Kessler provided an updated estimate for additional roof work came in at $16,929.00, reduced from $26,000.00, following review of roof pitch and product selection. The proposed TPO composite membrane is suitable for the low-slope roof, offers a 30-year warranty, and allows for future solar installation. Approval of PCO11 was recommended. Mr. Kessler stated with the successful referendum, the value-engineered reduction of $28,700.00 for bandshell siding is being added back to provide a uniform exterior appearance. The interior siding will remain unchanged to preserve acoustics. Final pricing will be determined by the architect, with a not-to-exceed recommendation. Mr. Kessler provided a schedule update indicating completion by July. Steel installation is currently on schedule, with minor delays from weather. The critical path remains the concrete slab pour in late March or early April, with temperature considerations and protective measures in place to ensure curing. All foundational work is complete, backfilled, and inspected, with Tri-State reports returning positive results. b. Review Proposed Change Order Mr. Egan made a motion to deny PCO06 in the amount of $12,311.00. Mr. Moore seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Mr. Egan made a motion to approve PCO09 in the amount of $107,586.00. Mr. Moore seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. 6 Mr. Moore made a motion to approve PCO10 in the amount of $45,141.00. Mr. Egan seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Mr. Moore made a motion to approve PCO11 in the amount of $16,929.00. Mr. Egan seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Mr. Moore made a motion to approve PCO12 not-to-exceed $28,700.00. Mr. Egan seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. c. Review Pay Applications & Invoices a. Application #03 Mr. Egan made a motion to approve payment of Application #03 Revision 2, dated 01/27/2026, in the amount of $247,287.00. The motion was seconded by Mr. Moore and passed unanimously. b. Colliers Invoice # 8150 Mr. Egan made a motion to approve payment of Colliers invoice 8150, dated 01/31/2026, in the amount of $4,900.00. The motion was seconded by Mr. Moore and passed unanimously. c. Tri-State Materials Testing Lab Invoice # TSMT17114 Mr. Moore made a motion to approve payment of Tri-State Materials Testing Lab invoice TSMT17114, dated 01/06/2026, in the amount of $2,681.58. The motion was seconded by Mr. Egan and passed unanimously. d. Aquarion Invoice Mr. Moore made a motion to approve payment of Aquarion invoice for hydrant testing, in the amount of $493.00. The motion was seconded by Mr. Egan and passed unanimously. 6. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Moore made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:06 p.m.; Mr. Egan seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.