Building Committee

Minutes

Friday March 14, 2008, 5pm Meeting #16 in the Parish House

(Revision 1)

Present: Building Committee members Fr. Bajorek, Tom Felton, Jack Quindlen, John Bowie, John Brennan, Ernie Menold, Jane Banik and Ken Margolis. Not present: Rosemary Endres.

Also present: Doug Nagle (from Tom Felton’s office)

16A. The Committee agreed to the following:

1. Tom F should proceed with preparing the drawings and specifications for a project that contains a fully-detailed exterior cupola (lantern) and no alternates.

Tom F presented a budget to the committee that includes a lantern in the design – and he believes the bids will come back within our budget, including the lantern. He also advised against adding alternates to the drawings and specifications in order to: 1) keep the bidders focused entirely on the committee’s principal project goals, and 2) maintain the project timetable. Based on this information, the committee agreed to proceed with a design containing a fully-detailed exterior cupola (lantern) and no alternates.

2. The design of the nave/sanctuary ceiling will contain either Armstrong’s “Optima” or “Ultima” pressed mineral fiber, removable panels, hung in a concealed grillage system that utilizes a portion of the existing slab-hung supports. The final acceptance of the Armstrong product, however, is subject to visits to in situ installations to inspect and approve the look as relevant to our building. Tom F’s “Armstrong Option 1” was selected as the design to be placed in the drawings and specifications. The “Decoustics” and “Simplex” ceiling products have been eliminated from the project.

3. Tom F’s drawings and specifications should be completed and ready to distribute to the three (or possibly four – if Pancoast & Clifford are still interested) pre-selected General Contractors on or before April 7, 2008.

4. Tom F will create a bid form that calls for a single bid price for the project in its entirety. However, within the bid form, there will be individual line items for each bidder to disclose their labor and material costs for such tasks as the lantern, the ceiling, the lighting, the elevator, and so on.

5. Tom F will establish the due date for the bids to be Friday, April 18, 2008. On that date, project architect Tom F, building committee leader Ken M and Fr. B will open them at the Archdiocesan offices in Philadelphia.

6. To the extent that the bids received exceed the amount of funds available for the scope of work designed, the Committee will enter into negotiations with any or all bidders in an attempt to reduce/adjust the project scope and cost to meet the funds available in order to make an award and proceed to the contract signing.

It is important for all building committee members to bear in mind, as Fr B has expressed on several occasions, that the published purpose of this capital campaign is to accomplish several “big” projects (the gym floor, the ceiling in the church, the handicapped parking and front entry plaza, the required liturgical changes and the elevator) and, at the same time, to repair and update the 40 year old church building, as well as attending to the parish grounds. As Fr. B has also noted, the “repair and update” of the church building is as important as the “big” projects.

Finally, Fr. B provided clear direction to the committee that he is in favor of adding the lantern to the church building only as long as it can be done without compromising the quality of the projects the capital campaign was initiated to accomplish. Fr. B stated that the lantern is beautiful and that he genuinely hopes the bids received do not exceed the amount of funds available.

7. Construction will commence in summer 2008 (most likely in August) – and proceed so that a late-November or early-December 2008 completion date can be achieved. The work schedule will be configured so that all demolition associated with the elevator portion of the work is completed before school resumes in early September, so as to keep the amount of disruption to classes to a minimum – especially regarding loud demolition noises, dust creation, and blocking of exits.

8. Fr. B will notify the August 2008 wedding parties of the schedule, so they can proceed with making their alternate arrangements.

16B. Two possible elevator schemes were also discussed – but only peripherally (not all committee members heard or participated in the discussion). Tom F and John Bo presented two sheets showing: 1) the first floor of the narthex, and 2) the basement of the Lower Church Hall directly beneath the narthex. The left-hand side of each page contains Option 1 and the right-hand side of each page contains Option 2. Option 1 places the LuLa elevator in the center of the existing stair-hall – thus necessitating removal of the existing stair and installation of a new steel pan stair. It also necessitates slight/limited reconfiguration of the classroom and kitchen directly below. Option 2 places the LuLa elevator in the area of the second toilet room upstairs and in the center of the girl’s rest room downstairs – thus requiring the complete reconfiguration of the upstairs toilet room, plus the loss of the upstairs janitor’s closet and the loss of two girl’s toilet stalls downstairs. Option 2 will also necessitate a lot of piping work, plus a lot of tile floor and wall finish work, which is significantly more expensive than replacing a steel stair. More important, however, is the subtle aspect of user dignity – the LuLa shown in Option 1 enables the user to enter using forward motion, and exit using forward motion. The LuLa in Option 2 requires the user to enter using forward motion but exit backing out – which is demeaning.

Although this issue was not discussed by the Committee as a whole at the meeting, it seems apparent to Tom F and John Bo that Option 1 is superior in all aspects – and in the interest of time, Tom F will proceed with placing said option into the drawings and specifications. Committee members are requested to post your thoughts – especially if there are contrary opinions, as soon as possible.

Incidentally, the term “LuLa” stands for limited use, limited access elevator. It is not an elevator in the traditional sense – it is intended for use exclusively by a disabled person and one companion (care giver). It is not for general convenience or for freight use.

16C. Several other activities took place this past week, which committee members should be apprised of, but which were not discussed at the meeting (they are presented herewith to keep everyone up-to-date on everything taking place):

1. In a meeting on Tuesday, March 11, 2008 with eminent lighting designer Edwin Rambusch and lighting supplier Rich McCartney, the concept of installing exterior and interior lights to accentuate the stained glass windows at evening-time during occupancy and evening-time while empty (respectively) was nixed. It seemed like a good idea at the time – but in practicality, it would generally only produce hot-spots on the glass and not uniformly illuminate the windows in a manner similar to sunlight. However, an exception to this is the stained glass window of the Resurrection over the front doors of the church building, which is currently illuminated at night, and should be maintained and upgraded.

2. At that same meeting, Rich McC demonstrated several tungsten/halogen/quartz recessed ceiling light fixtures. Using the long ladder together with John Spinelli’s scaffolding, Rich McC and Mike Keller positioned the lights near the ceiling and moved them around to find the area of best coverage. The color and intensity of the light was far beyond our expectation and provided a stunningly remarkable transformation to the aesthetic character of the space. Additional investigation will be conducted by committee members on the quantity and placement of these fixtures, in combination with possible decorative fixtures to be strategically placed in the nave, in combination with new fixtures to be placed in the stair-halls.

3. Earlier that day, Brendan Doyle of Butler Roofing Systems visited and mentioned that Butler would consider extending the church’s existing metal roof warranty if the lantern contained their roofing and flashing products. (He offered it – but it’s not in writing yet.) This is an important consideration – because the building’s existing metal roof is three years beyond its original 10 year warranty, and leaks have started to develop.

4. Also earlier that day, committee members met with Tootsie Troiani of Kay & Sons (wall covering and window treatment suppliers) about the possibility of installing a fabric panel system to be used behind each of the Stations of the Cross on the rear nave walls. These panels could provide the Stations with more identity (currently, they are fairly obscure against the brick), especially when combined with accent lighting.

5. Also earlier that day, committee members met with two independent sound specialists seeking their recommendations and proposals to update the church building’s sound system.

6. In the handout packets at the meeting, Tom F provided a design for an Ambo that will match the stone and style of the existing Altar, Baptistry and Tabernacle. The committee did not have a chance to discuss this design, but Tom F will send it out for pricing by the recommended archdiocesan stone specialist (Luigi?), and several other fabricators with whom he has worked in the past.

7. Also in the handout packets at the meeting, Tom F provided two schemes for the two west entry stair-halls – one employing stone tiles and one employing a wood wainscot. Tom F will send these out for pricing as well.

These Minutes submitted by John Bowie – March 15, 2008 (RV1 - March 17, 2008)