MILAN PUBLIC HEARING

September 22, 2004

 

Those in Attendance:

Andrew Mullins, Milan Board Chair

Jacqueline Quintal, Milan Board Member

Sarah Sarette, Principal Milan Village School

Patrick Low, SAU 20 Superintendent

Pauline Plourde, SAU 20 Business Administrator

John Garvey, Attorney Sulloway & Hollis

Members of the public

 

 

Andy Mullins, chair of the Milan School Board, opened the hearing at 6:35 pm.  Andy brought the group up to speed on the new developments with the roof – sheathing is pulling away from the hats that are attached to the trusses.  This has caused more leaks in the cafeteria/gym area.

 

Attorney John Garvey of Sulloway & Hollis was introduced and discussed the process of the Performance Bond.  He also informed the group that Wrenn Associates has filed Chapter 11 asking for a form of protection.  He is presently working with Sean Kopeny, surety for Kemper Insurance Co and Greyhawk North America an architectural firm working for the surety.  Wrenn’s position is that they have properly performed. 

 

He also informed those in attendance that the District can’t wait to address damages to the building because additional costs due from waiting could then be mitigated.

 

Questions from those in attendance:

  1. The subs performed the work, who is responsible?  Wrenn as the contractor.
  2. Please explain the new discovery of the roof.  Andy read the report of Bill Hickey.
  3. The insulation was supposed to be 16” on center with furring strips.  The furring strips were never placed.
  4. Questioning the advisability of a “warm” attic.  Wouldn’t the cost to heat increase?
  5. How can we guarantee that subs will be paid if they work for us in the future?  The reputation of the District is that they don’t pay their bills.   (It was explained that the District does in fact pay its bills.  The subs working on the project were not hired by the District but by Wrenn; therefore, the District does not owe the subs any money for the work they performed in that capacity.  When work is requested by the District, vendors have been properly and timely paid.
  6. What process brought the Turner Group on board?  A group of architects were recommended and the Turner Group proved to be available and highly qualified.
  7. What will happen if we go with a warm attic approach?  Will the added costs be paid by the performance bond? (The performance bond company will ascertain if we’re getting more than we paid for.  Attorney Garvey cautioned that we might not be fully reimbursed.
  8. What did Wrenn do with our payments? (Wrenn obviously didn’t pay the subs they should have.)
  9. Would we tend to loose additional aid if we retain the performance bond?  (No, a final form will be filed with the State once the project is complete.)
  10. What is the purpose of the meeting?  (To request to retain the fund balance for use under RSA 32:11 – emergency expenditures and overexpenditures.
  11. How about the architects?  It appears that the design was proper but the execution seems to be in question.

 

Those in attendance stated they didn’t want to go through another winter as last year and believed the Board should request the fund balance be retained so the work could proceed.

 

Andy thanked those in attendance for their support.  Meeting was adjourned at 7:45 pm.

 

Respectively submitted by Pauline Plourde

SAU #20 Business Administrator