Minutes
Public Building Committee - Minutes - Apr 13, 2026
Apr 13, 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 April 13, 2026 Subject to Approval There being a quorum present, Chair Derr called the Regular Meeting of the Public Building Committee to order at 7:00 p.m., which was conducted in person in the Board of Education Conference Room at Simsbury Town Hall and via Zoom. PRESENT ☒ Mr. Ryan Burns ☐ Mr. William Clegg ☒ Mr. Richard Derr ☐ Mr. Lucian Dragulski ☒ Mr. Michael Egan ☒ Ms. Dagny Griswold ☒ Mr. David Moore ☒ Mr. John Salvatore ☐ Ms. Marcianne Timm GUESTS Arcadis: Zach Machold, Onsite Project Manager (via Zoom) Simsbury Engineering Department: Thomas J. Roy, PE, Director of Public Works, Town Engineer; Simsbury Public Schools: Jason Casey, Director of Infrastructure & Technology (via Zoom) Jacunski Humes Architects: Brian Humes, AIA, LEED AP and Founding Partner (via Zoom) 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 2. MINUTES OF THE MARCH 2, 2026, REGULAR MEETING Mr. Egan made a motion to approve the March 2, 2026 Meeting Minutes. Mr. Salvatore seconded the motion. Mr. Moore abstained due to his absence. The motion passed. 3. LATIMER LANE RENOVATION Mr. Machold stated that this would be the final meeting he would attend. He informed the group that the final budget spreadsheet had been provided and summarized the key point of the document, noting that $57,246.00 remains in the owner contingency. Mr. Machold also disclosed that upon completion of a school construction project, each district is required to submit state-provided grant documents along with Board of Education minutes demonstrating acceptance of the completed project, and in this case, Public Building Committee minutes reflecting the Committee’s acceptance. The Office of Grants Administration will subsequently coordinate with the district to finalize the project and, following completion of the final calculation, will transmit the project to the audit team. Mr. Burns inquired about the status of the reimbursement process. Mr. Machold provided an update, stating that reimbursement requests had been submitted for approximately 85% of the total project value and that all requested funds to date had been received. He explained that approval of the motion would allow submission of the final reimbursement request, noting that, to his knowledge, the final request had not yet been submitted. Mr. Machold clarified that approval of the motion, along with a corresponding motion by the Board of Education, would authorize submission of all final documentation, after which the process would move forward to the state audit phase. Chair Derr asked whether a separate motion was required to return the remaining $57,246.00 to the Town or Board of Finance. Mr. Casey responded that he would confirm with Carol Mitchell, Business Office Coordinator for Simsbury Public Schools and Amy Meriwether, Finance Director/Treasurer for the Town of Simsbury and Simsbury Board of Education, but did not recall such a requirement. He stated that the Public Building Committee must first vote to declare the project complete so that the Board of Education can formally accept it, after which responsibility transitions to the Board of Education. Chair Derr asked whether any outstanding expenses remained that would utilize the remaining amount. Mr. Machold stated that, to his knowledge, there were no remaining expenses. He explained that once the project is accepted as complete, no further project-related payments can be made, as all invoices must be fully paid prior to closeout and submission for final reimbursement. Mr. Burns made a motion to accept that the Latimer Lane Elementary School Project, State Project Number 128-0111RNV, as complete and authorizes the Superintendent to submit all required closeout documentation, including SCG-049F, to the Office of Grants Administration. Mr. Salvatore seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Mr. Machold left the meeting at 7:04 p.m. 4. TOOTIN' HILLS PARTIAL ROOF REPLACEMENT Mr. Humes provided an update on the Tootin’ Hills roof project. He stated that the project has been substantially complete since the previous fall and noted that the team is awaiting receipt of an independent third-party report. He further reported that a concern had been raised regarding ponding in a 3 connector section of the school roof. The contractor inspected the area, confirmed that proper pitch had been installed at the scupper, and performed additional reflashing work around the scupper to mitigate the ponding issue. This corrective work was completed at no cost under warranty. Mr. Humes also noted that, throughout the winter season, no reports of leaks have been received in the areas that were re- roofed. Chair Derr inquired about the acceptable standard for roof ponding, specifically asking whether it is measured by a certain depth, such as a quarter inch or half inch. Mr. Humes responded that the standard is time-based rather than depth-based, explaining that standing water should dissipate within 48 hours. Chair Derr clarified that this would mean no standing water should remain on the roof 48 hours after rainfall, to which Mr. Humes confirmed that this is correct. Chair Derr acknowledged the 48-hour standard for ponding and noted that freezing conditions could still occur within that timeframe, creating the potential for ice. He expressed concern regarding accessibility in the affected area, explaining that on-site staff periodically access this portion of the roof to monitor conditions and perform maintenance activities such as drain cleaning. It was noted that ponding or icing could impede access, particularly during winter conditions. Mr. Humes responded that the past winter included notably severe conditions, with significant icing affecting roofing systems and gutters. He explained that freeze-thaw cycles could exacerbate vulnerabilities in roofing components; however, he noted that no such issues have been reported at this location. He further clarified that the scupper in question was an existing feature that had been re-roofed and reflashed as part of the project. Chair Derr stated that the Committee would await the third-party report and anticipated further discussion upon its receipt. Mr. Humes inquired about the expected timeline for the report. Mr. Roy reported that an inspection had recently been conducted by H.B. Fishman and Kalwall representatives. Initial feedback indicated that the Kalwall system is designed to drain internally to a sill plate, with water then directed outward. It was noted that a previously installed liquid-applied membrane may be obstructing this drainage path, raising concerns that water could become trapped behind the panels and potentially migrate into the library area. While caulking is currently preventing leakage, it was acknowledged as a temporary solution. Mr. Roy further stated that the Kalwall representative observed signs of aging in the panels, including surface deterioration and fiber separation, and is expected to provide a proposal for replacement. An alternative option of installing siding over the translucent panels was also mentioned, with the observation that the interior space currently receives sufficient natural light. Uncertainty remains regarding whether the existing membrane can be modified or removed to restore proper drainage. The Committee was advised that the third-party report is expected within a few weeks of this meeting. Mr. Humes left the meeting at 7:11 p.m. 5. SIMSBURY MEADOWS PERFORMING ARTS CENTER – BAND SHELL EXPANSION a. Progress Status Report Mr. Roy provided a project update and stated that overall progress is proceeding well, with significant advancements observed over the past several weeks. Interior framing and sheetrock installation are 4 underway, and electrical wiring is actively being installed. Work on the building exterior has also commenced, including layout of the base course for siding. Mr. Roy shared the project remains on schedule for a targeted completion date at the end of June. It was noted that site contractors have accelerated portions of the interior work due to crew availability, resulting in increased productivity. While some congestion among crews was observed due to the heightened level of activity, this was viewed positively as an indication of substantial progress being made. b. Review Proposed Change Order PCO20 was presented as a change order for the installation of a pressure-reducing valve for the domestic water service. Mr. Roy explained that due to the low elevation of the facility, water pressure from the street main exceeds recommended levels, estimated to be above 85 psi and potentially in the low 90s. The installation of the valve, at a cost of just under $2,000.00, is intended to reduce pressure to acceptable levels in accordance with guidelines. The valve will be located on the domestic water service just outside the building. It was noted that this addition would provide long-term benefits by protecting interior fixtures from excessive pressure. A subsequent change order was presented concerning the relocation of an existing backflow valve. It was explained that, due to the building expansion, the valve would otherwise be located beneath the slab, making future access and maintenance impractical. A materials-only change order in the amount of $563.00 was proposed to relocate the valve outside the building footprint to ensure accessibility and proper maintenance moving forward. Mr. Roy reviewed PCO21, a proposed change order in the amount of $3,372.00 for additional roof blocking. The contractor indicated that additional blocking was required beyond what was specified in the original plans and specifications. Clarification was provided that the blocking is necessary to ensure adequate fastening for the flat roof system, allowing sufficient material for nail attachment. Mr. Roy further explained that the blocking must match the thickness of the insulation, necessitating the installation of additional wood components. The cost associated with the added materials was estimated to be approximately $1,600.00 to $1,700.00, representing roughly half of the total proposed change order amount. Further consideration of the justification and cost breakdown was discussed. PCO23R2, a proposed change order in the amount of $42,007.47 related to the fire alarm system. Mr. Roy explained that the scope of work exceeds minimum code requirements but was recommended as necessary for a Town-owned facility. Under code requirements, the fire alarm system is not required to be connected to an off-site monitoring service (such as an ADT-type system), which could result in an alarm activation occurring without immediate notification to responsible parties. The proposed system includes this monitoring capability to ensure timely awareness and response. Mr. Roy further noted that, although smoke detectors are not required due to the presence of a sprinkler system, additional smoke detectors were included as a supplemental safety measure. The rationale provided was that sprinkler activation typically occurs at a later stage in a fire event, and earlier detection through smoke alarms would provide an important added layer of protection. The Town did not oversee the original design process. As a result, certain security infrastructure needs were not fully incorporated into the initial design documents. PCO24R1 work includes the installation of necessary blocking to provide proper mounting locations for cameras, as well as the installation of conduit to accommodate communication and data wiring associated with the system. It was explained that the current scope does not include security cameras themselves; rather, it is intended to prepare the 5 building for future installation of a security camera system. Mr. Roy provided clarification that these components represent infrastructure “drops” only and confirmed that the security cameras will be procured and installed separately by the Town under a future, independent effort. The Committee discussed an additional electrical-related change order pertaining to hand dryer installations in six bathrooms. It was noted that the hand dryers are depicted on the architectural drawings but were not included on the electrical drawings. Millennium has submitted PCO25 in the amount of $3,709.00 to address the associated electrical work. Discussion followed regarding responsibility for the omission and coordination between disciplines. Questions by the Committee were raised as to why the discrepancy was identified late in the process and why the work was not incorporated during earlier design coordination. The conversation expanded to include related concerns regarding coordination issues on other change orders, including roof blocking. Mr. Roy noted that blocking requirements are dependent on roof insulation thickness and may vary from initial assumptions in the drawings. Members acknowledged that field conditions and installation requirements often necessitate adjustments from the original design intent. Mr. Roy clarified that, in the case of the roof blocking, materials had already been ordered in advance of the formal request. The material cost associated with that work was identified as approximately $1,605.00. It was further noted that the installed blocking represents a value-added component within the building. The Committee discussed broader concerns regarding timing and coordination of change order submissions, with frustration expressed that some items appear to be identified or submitted late in the process. It was noted that, historically, similar adjustments in blocking dimensions have not typically resulted in separate financial claims. In closing, it was agreed to approve the materials portion of the item at this time, while deferring discussion regarding associated labor costs for a later date. Mr. Moore made a motion to approve PCO20 in the amount of $1,959.00. Mr. Egan seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Mr. Moore made a motion to approve PCO21 in the amount of $563.00. Mr. Egan seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Mr. Egan made a motion to deny PCO22 in the amount of $3,372.00 based upon specification that the blocking needs to meet the insulation thickness. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Further discussion was held regarding the roof blocking-related change order and the appropriateness of the associated cost responsibility. It was stated that, in principle, a change order would be reasonable if there had been an actual change to the contract documents, such as additional insulation, revised roofing conditions, or added rooftop equipment requiring supplemental blocking. It was noted that, in this case, no such documented change to the roofing insulation or scope was identified, and therefore no corresponding change order for insulation or related scope adjustments had been observed. It was further stated that an RFI confirmation alone does not constitute a modification to the contract documents. Concerns were expressed regarding the timing of the ordering of the blocking materials, with some members questioning the sequence of events and suggesting the matter warranted further scrutiny. It was noted that the Committee did not believe it should automatically assume responsibility for the associated 6 cost under the current circumstances, given the lack of a documented change in scope. Additional comments reflected frustration with the situation and a desire for clarity regarding how the issue developed. It was suggested that the matter may be subject to closer review, including financial scrutiny, as part of broader project oversight. Mr. Egan made a motion to approve PCO23R2 in the amount of $42,747.00. Mr. Moore seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Mr. Moore made a motion to approve PCO24R1 in the amount of $1,248.00. Mr. Egan seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Mr. Moore made a motion to approve PCO25 in the amended amount of $2,021.25. Mr. Egan seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. The Committee continued discussion on PCO25 related to the electrical provisions and installation of hand dryers in six bathrooms. The item generated extensive deliberation regarding design coordination, scope responsibility, and the interpretation of the architectural versus electrical drawings. Concerns were raised regarding the apparent discrepancy between the architectural drawings, which indicate hand dryers in all bathrooms, and the electrical drawings, which do not reference power provisions or panel schedules for the equipment. It was noted that Millennium submitted a claim stating the electrical rough- in was not included in their bid due to its omission from the electrical drawings. The Committee debated whether responsibility for the omission rests with the design team or the bidding contractor, with differing views expressed regarding coordination expectations during the bidding process and the obligation to identify inconsistencies across disciplines. It was generally acknowledged that the architectural drawings depict the hand dryers, while the electrical drawings do not explicitly provide corresponding power requirements. Discussion also addressed the scope of the change order, noting that Millennium was seeking compensation not only for electrical rough-in work but also for installation labor of the hand dryers. Several members expressed concern that installation labor may represent duplicative or non-compensable scope, as installation responsibilities were considered to fall within existing contract assumptions. After extended discussion, a motion that had been introduced to deny PCO25 did not proceed. The Committee instead reached consensus to modify the proposed change order. It was agreed that the installation labor component would be removed from the request, and only the electrical rough-in portion would be considered for approval. A revised motion was made and approved to accept PCO25 in the adjusted amount of $2,021.25, reflecting the removal of installation labor costs. The Committee noted that future responsibility for installation coordination and associated costs should be clarified in accordance with the contract documents and design intent. c. Review Pay Applications & Invoices Mr. Moore made a motion to approve payment of Application #5, dated 04/08/2026, in the certified amount of $539,985.90. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. 7 Mr. Moore made a motion to approve payment of the invoice from Tri-State Materials Testing Lab: Invoice #TSMT17361, in the amount of $3,205.19. Mr. Egan seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. 6. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Moore made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:13 p.m.; Mr. Egan seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.