• Agendas for business meeting

*A password is required. Please contact jamestr@gmail.com, identifying your connection to the meeting, to request the password or if you have any questions or difficulties.

“How much more money?” That’s a chicken and egg question.

The construction which is being supervised by MOMSAH continues to go well, and the end is mid-October, the date promised by Whole Builders all along.

The TCFM “Design Team” and the volunteers it coordinates (and maybe the subcontractors it hires) will finish up the work. This may take longer than mid-October, but hopefully the work that remains will not prevent us from using most of the building.

The “chicken & egg” problem I am bringing to you is that we are running out of the money we have budgeted, and we don’t know how much we should change gears and “make do,” with what is left.

We can “make do” just fine, but we will sacrifice some quality, convenience and efficiency. If the TCFM community has more money available, we can continue to invest more now in work which will save us money and disruption in the long run.

So I’m asking, please pledge what you can, or just send money.

We need to know, no later than next Sunday, September 6, how much money you think you can offer.

I’m talking extra money here, beyond what you already expect to give to the Meeting this year.

Please send your money to:

Treasurer

Twin Cities Friends Meeting

1725 Grand Avenue

Saint Paul MN 55105

Please note on your check: “Extra for construction”.

Pledges of extra money you can contribute this year can also be sent to the treasurer, or you can email them to

clerk@tcfm.org

The response to this appeal in it’s first week has been very gratifying, and here’s an example of how that money has made a difference:

We recently discovered that parts of the library window had rotted away. In “we can make do” mode, we might have patched the rotten areas. If the patches didn’t hold, we notice, and work on them some more. And we would have saved the meeting a chunk of money, this year. However, several professionals have been clear this is not advisable. For the over-all health of the building it is much preferable to get a whole new bank of four windows that will be trouble-free for years, with a full warrantee. Because of the money that was pledged last week, MOMSAH felt confident to order the new windows.

We have several choices like this, and it is hard to make them when we are in the dark about how many extra $$ the community has available.

So, as Clerk of Meeting, I am asking you all to make pledges or send money, ASAP.

We don’t need all the money ASAP, but we need, quickly, to have an idea of what we can expect.

I understand that our Development Committee is launching a formal fund drive in the fall, and they will follow up on pledges, as well as reaching everybody in the community, which this appeal surely will not.

This is like shaking the piggy bank, just to get an idea of how much is in there.

Time is of the essence here, rather than completeness.

Any response from you, whether it is “I’m maxed out” or a $5 donation, will help MOMSAH and the Design Team know how much more we have available.

In closing, I’ll offer another example of how knowing what resources we have available has been extremely helpful in the decision-making process: the Meeting Room walls.

Because we know we have the money, it makes sense to patch the cracks and paint the Meeting Room walls as part of completing the project, before the sound-dampening panels go back on. Without the money that was pledged last week, we might have waited until later to patch and paint, which would have cost us more than it will now. By doing it next week we avoid the later renting of high scaffolding, which would have meant protecting the floor, moving much of the furniture out of the room, and a fresh wave of fumes making the building unusable for some, for a month or more.

Yours in faith,

Richard Fuller,

Clerk of TCFM

8/21/09

Before Any Construction

Yikes! We have to move everything out of the new addition!

The pianos,

the benches, and tables, shelving…

Empty the moldy rugs & furniture from the Grotto into the dumpster .

OK, now we’re ready for…

Getting Ready

Whole Builders (our design-build contractors) show up.

Some of the planners:

Whole Builders’ Mary Jane & Keith. TCFM’s Carolyn, EB & Mike.

This Building is Closed!

Doors are covered with schedules of meetings and maps to other locations.

Water & Mold Damage and Remediation

They began by sealing against mold contamination during mold removal before any walls or ceilings were ripped open.

The elevator and many doors and passages were sealed off.

The ceilings of several rooms were pulled down to find the mold. Walls were broken open and inspected.

Damage above stairwell.

Underside of roof deck.

Underside of roof deck

Under window and underneath floor in new classroom.

 

Window Damage 1

Window Damage 2

Soda blaster (at foot of back stairs).

Blast was so powerful it dug deep into the grain in the damaged spots, like the right corner of the window frame.

Of course the air was filled with toxic dust. This was scrubbed with an industrial air cleaner and then…

vented out through the FIR living room windows…

out of the building…

all the way past the compost piles and out to the alley.

First, get the old furnace off the roof.

Pull off the old roof membrane.

Looking down into parking lot. (That’s a roof drain in the center. It empties out by the back steps.)

The corner of the roof over the stairwell, so rotten it has to be replaced. (Don’t be confused by the roof access hatch cover, that has been moved off it’s access hole, temporarily.)

Above the stairwell in the new building, the roof deck is torn off.

New Roof

Roof decking on bad corner is replaced, extending all the way over to and around access hatch.

laying of new membrane begins.

First, more insulation than we had before, above the deck, under the membrane.

Insulation around that roof drain.

Then covered with membrane, in the corner next to the parking lot.

Of course, it’s not just the flat part of the roof…

there’s new flashing around the parapets.

The strips of membrane are sealed together with heat. (This is one of many places you are glad you paid for a high-quality subcontractor.)

That’s the top of the elevator.

We now know that the original roof, installed 17 years ago, had problems in the “bridge” area.

We are hoping for a better job, this time around.

Looking good…

View from the roof of the old house.

Happiness is a snug new roof over the Meeting Room!

Meeting Room

First, we cover the floor. (See “Fellowship Room,” below, for details.)

We don’t seem to have any photos of the ceiling coming down, and the huge amount of (suspect) insulation coming out. (Insulation was suspect because it was the same as allowed the sprinkler pipe to freeze over the bridge.)

Then, we inspect the underside of the roof.

No rotten trusses (whew)!

Only one spot of mold growing on rotten wood. (This plywood was replaced later, from up top.)

Fellowship Room

First, protect the floor (the same process that was done in the Meeting Room)

A waterproof barrier,

smoothed and taped.

Then overlaid with a hard surface, also taped.

Bring down the ceiling!

The light fixtures and water-stained acoustical tile are down.

Down comes the sheet rock and the insulation.

Underside of Meeting Room floor, above, is now accessible, almost ready for the installation of in-floor heating.

Back Steps, Adjacent Stucco and Sump Room

The area around the back steps was never sealed.

Nor was the area of wall behind the steps. There should have been stucco where you can see plywood, under the dark strip of flashing, behind the long white pipe.

This allowed water infiltration into the area just below, which happens to be the sump room.

This is the small room just behind the janitor’s closet/furnace room next to the bathrooms near the Fellowship room.

(The sump pump is supposed to keep the amphitheater from filling with rain and flooding into the Fellowship Room.)

Regular leakage from the area of the back steps over the years has increased our moisture and mold problems in the Fellowship area.

Plus some other things

Oh yeah, there’s the bridge ceiling, where the original sprinkler break was. There was water damage and mold around the windows, from rain getting in.

While we are at it, it seems important to improve the amphitheater drain. We’ve had flooding into the Fellowship room a couple of times.

Finishing the FIR apartment

The bathroom in the FIR apartment will be put back as it was before. We plan that most of the work will be done by TCFM volunteers.

The FIR kitchen will be significantly redesigned to include more storage space.

Looking Ahead

(Not including all the finish-work TCFM volunteers will be doing in the FIR apartment and elsewhere) as of mid-July, here are the major things Whole Builders still has on its list:

FIR, Trim, Casings, Base, Etc…

Flooring

Gas Pipe Union @ Fellowship Ceiling, R & R, Inspection, Etc…

HVAC Install @ Mtg Room @ Fellowship Room @ All In-Floor Tubing Install

Insulation @ FIR

Insulation @ Mtg Room

Insulation @ Fellowship Room

Mechanical Rough-ins

Mechanical Finishes, HVAC, Plumbing, Electrical, Sprinkler, Fire Alarm, Smoke Detectors, Etc…

Plumbing, Install Sump, FIR plumbing, Remove & Replace, Etc…

Reinforce Truss, Roof Inspection-

Sprinkler Head, Remove & Replace, and Adjustments at Fellowship Ceiling and “Required Changes”

Stucco, R & R, Patching, Etc…

Window Install

Carpet Cleaning

Prime & Paint

INSPECTIONS

Project Take-down, Completion, Etc…

Punch List, Etc…

Stay tuned for the next photos.

Volunteers are needed to complement the work of MOMSAH and our contractor Whole Builders, and to reduce the construction costs. The main area of work is in the FIR apartment in order for it to be completed within the timeline of the rest of reconstruction. As such it is a finite commitment through September. Tasks are varied, and include everything from basic cleaning, painting, and staining wood to tiling and wood working. If you are interested in volunteering, please contact Joe Landsberger at 651-297-9000 or jfl@studygs.net.

• A contract has been signed with Whole Builders, and they have obtained a permit for the work.
• We expect a dumpster on site and work to begin May 11. We will receive a work timetable in the next few days, after which we will be able to let Friends know what work will be done when.
• There will shortly be an opportunity to help Whole Builders lay down material to protect the Meetingroom floor, protect the Fellowship Room carpet, and remove the Fellowship Room ceiling. It is important to wait until Whole Builders lets us know they are ready for this help: a dumpster is on site, all permits obtained, the material has arrived, someone from WB can supervise, etc. If you are interested in participating, please contact Lynn Cibuzar and let her know typical times when you could be available to help. Lynn will be sending out an email to TCFM folks, inviting you to identify yourself as someone willing to be contacted to learn more about the specific needs and opportunities. Please reply to that if you are interested.
• It is really important that we follow Whole Builders’ lead when helping with this project. MOMSAH and the G-4 decision group have worked very hard to lay the groundwork for success, and TCFM cannot afford to have this work undermined. All help will be directed through MOMSAH. There will be times when no one besides WB and their subcontractors will be permitted in the building.
• Regular updates will appear in the Announcement Sheet and the website.
• Many thanks to everyone who has contributed to the speedy preparation of the Mtghouse for the construction work, and for identifying the locations for TCFM to meet while the building is under construction.

MOMSAH (Making Our Meetinghouse Safe And Healthy) was convened to select and work with a Design/Build construction firm to create a plan and implement the needed repairs. The plan is being finalized, and a construction contract will be signed with Whole Builders shortly.

Our estimated start date for construction work is May 4th, 2009. Work will continue for several months and will involve all three floors of the new addition. The building will be closed until at least the end of June. This work under contract with Whole Builders will include:

Dealing with Mold and Moisture:

• Mold remediation: FIR apt space, Stairwell and Bridge, Meeting room, Fellowship room, Furnace/sump room and Electrical room, and perhaps Library (to be determined, once FIR apt work starts). Extent of remediation will vary with the extent of the problem (the FIR apt space is in the worst condition).
• Removal of the main floor carpet.  (Replacement of it will be TCFM’s responsibility.)
• Repairs to the sump, and a new concrete floor in Furnace/sump room to keep out moisture.
• Sealing (moldy) ventilation ducts in concrete floor of Fellowship room.
• Repairing the Roof and Improving Insulation:
• Replacement of the roof membrane on the new addition, and evaluation of roof trusses.
• New highly energy-efficient insulation under this new roof membrane (requiring removal of ceilings of Meeting room, FIR apt, Bridge and Stairwell).
• Repair of the stucco walls if needed.
• Insulation of all exterior walls in the FIR space.

Upgrading the Heating and Ventilation Systems:

• New highly energy-efficient natural gas heating and ventilation system for FIR space.
• New highly energy-efficient natural gas system for heating and ventilation of the Fellowship room, Library and main hall, as well as for ventilation of the Mtg Room.
• New hot-water in-floor heating system for the Mtg Room, installed through the Fellowship Room ceiling.  This system will provide better comfort, silent operation, and energy efficiency, while giving TCFM the option later for solar pre-heating of the water.

Other Tasks:

Various tasks to finish the work will be needed, including sheetrocking, paintibng, and caring for the Mtg Room floor.  Many of these will be done in the Whole Builders contract, but several have been set aside for TCFM to do, and will be undertaken through POPSAH (Process of Proposing, Solving and Helping).

Questions about the project:    Check www.tcfm.org for ongoing updates and how to help, or contact MOMSAH co-clerks:  Elizabeth Barnard (651-776-7821) or Carolyn Carr (612-721-6021) carolynecarr@hotmail.com.

1. Decide on one or a small number of coordinators for this project
2. Decide on overall decorating scheme & arrange for purchase of non-toxic materials
3. Inventory existing appliances for suitability
4. Hang sheetrock -may not be needed
5. Tape sheetrock -may not be needed
6. Primer coat of paint – may or may not be needed
7. Paint
8. Finish bathroom
   1. install, toilet, sink & shower – may have been done
   2. tile walls
   3. lay floor covering
   4. install towel racks
   5. install lights?
   6. (bathroom exhaust fan already installed.)
9. Finish kitchen
   1. install floor covering for kitchen area.
   2. move appliances into place, arrange for gas stove to be connected
   3. Install counters, or has this been done?
   4. Wall treatments? Splash guards, etc. ?
   5. etc.
10. Finish living area
    1. Install carpet?
    2. etc.
11. Finish Bedroom
    1. Hang clothes bar in closet
    2. etc.
12. Finish entry/ storage area

Rough beginning & ending times for the work

Not yet known

Comments

In the comments area any TCFM community member is invited to enter any information you feel is relevant.

• If you think you have the time and skill to coordinate the work of others in this area, volunteer, or give us your rates.
• If you have particular skills you would like to offer to this project, let us know.
• Tell us about unused construction materials like bathroom tiling you would like to donate.
• Tell us what hours and what months you might be available to help.

Background

• When the Whole Builders construction contract is completed in the fall, a significant amount will remain to be done. (More on that in a moment.)
• Another upcoming challenge is that MOMSAH is an ad-hoc committee which is to be dissolved when its work is done. To the extent that work remains, we have always expected that it would be picked up by our standing committees, especially Trustees and Meeting House Committee. However, we are not there yet; we are at the BEGINNING of a significant and complicated process of transition.
• Because many TCFM members over the last year have said they wanted to help with construction, and have claimed that working with tools to remake our meetinghouse will be a great community-building experience, MOMSAH has left many potentially-fun tasks out of the construction contract with Whole Builders. Some of this will be the work of volunteers and some will be paid work for people who have skills not possessed by most of us.
• And who is going to coordinate this? This is WAY-too-big a one-time project, with time pressures, to dump in the lap of Meeting House Committee.
• Another layer of complexity is that while MOMSAH is focused on the “new” addition, there are projects in the old house which need to be coordinated with the new construction. For instance, it is silly to invest hugely in making the new addition mold-free while not at the same time attending to our moldy grotto.

Introducing POPSAH, the Process Of Proposing, Solving And Helping.

POPSAH is not a committee, as MOMSAH is.

POPSAH is a PROCESS that we will use to coordinate the transition from the MOMSAH-supervised construction process to the eventual resumption of regular building & repair responsibilities by Meeting House Committee and Trustees.
POPSAH is still being born, and we hardly know what it looks like yet, but it’s clear we can start by gathering information from all interested parties. So we are developing a Project List, and a Time and Skills Inventory. You can see an example of a project here: “Finishing the FIR apartment.”

For each project, MOMSAH will rough out the scope of work and then will hire a contractor or choose a coordinator or two, either paid or unpaid. MOMSAH will go over the guidelines (like, “use only NO-VOC paint”) and discuss the budget for this project.

Some projects, like “Remove nails from the ceiling in the Fellowship room” may happen during the time the Whole Builders contractors are working.

Projects & Inventories

Right now we are using the MOMSAH category of this website to share about upcoming projects and to get offers of time and skills from the community. We may change to another system for the two-way flow of information as things develop.

Generally, we will outline the the tasks that need to be done and we will have a way, like the “comments” section, for community members to provide input. For any project listed any TCFM community member is invited to enter any information in the comments area that you feel is relevant.

• If you think you have the time and skill to coordinate the work of others in this area, volunteer, or give us your rates.
• If you have particular skills you would like to offer to this project, let us know.
• Tell us about unused construction materials like bathroom tiling you would like to donate.
• Tell us what hours and what months you might be available to help.

Comments to this post:

On the individual projects, like “Finishing the FIR apartment,” we want ideas and offers like those listed just above.

For this post, please comment on the general idea of how we share information about work to be done and who might do it, that is, please share your ideas about the POPSAH process itself.

o    The group as a whole is open to have either WB’s environmental contract consult the project or Lane’s.

*Concerns/questions related to Whole Builders proposal:

o    HVAC:

• Will the two zone system located in the lower level still be as loud (or louder) then the existing furnace?
• What are the cost options if we leave the existing Roof Top Unit and only add a new unit to the FIR and new unit to the lower level?

o    Action: Jeremy and Mike will meet with WB and their Mechanical sub this week before Business for Meeting to better understand their mechanical approach.
o    Ceiling in the Meeting Room and FIR apartment:

• Minimize sheetrock removal
• Are we open to ceiling replacement with an acoustical suspended system allowing
  • Increased acoustics
  • Future access i.e. inspection, wire additions, any need for access
  • Less costly to install and replace/maintain
  • Down side – commercial appearance if not tastefully installed.

o    Why so much sprinkler removal work

• Mike and Jeremy will follow up

o    Roofing selection

• Would like additional quote
  • Mike and Jeremy will follow up with Kevin Neals contact at Dalsin Roofing
• Question – what makes this proposed roof any different then our existing 15 year roof?

* Mike and Jeremy plan on meeting with WB to review the new and improved Phase I list that the group decided on and hopefully put numbers to each item before the Meeting for Business this coming Friday.

In anticipation of that meeting the team of  Carolyn, EB, Jeremy & Mike got the following two documents:

1. An updated “Cost Summary Report” from Whole Builders.

wb-report-090206

An earlier version had been the subject of much discussion with Whole Builders, and this was their attempt to summarize our mutual understandings, at that point.

2. The next step in thinking about Heating, Ventilation & Air Conditioning (HVAC) from Whole Builders’ HVAC subcontractor, Sayler.

saylerproposal4

Both of these documents are merely installments in the ongoing discussion, and probably will be of little interest to most folks. Still, we are talking about large sums of money, and MOMSAH clerks felt even these interim documents should be posted so people can inspect them, if they wish.

At our Nov 10 mtg, MOMSAH made an important decision and accepted one of the three proposals submitted to us for Phases I and II. Perhaps as importantly, in the course of reaching this decision, we came to terms with differences among the committee members, and gained a new understanding about the work of the Jt Committee of Trustees and Mtghouse Committee, which preceded MOMSAH’s work. After extensive conversation, we united in accepting the proposal from Whole Builders.

MOMSAH is pleased with Whole Builders’ proposal and their qualifications. They provided the most detailed proposal, have committed to meet with us bimonthly and to provide detailed cost information throughout the project. Communication with the firm has been excellent to date, which is promising. In addition, three members of our committee have had good experiences with this firm.

It is very important to MOMSAH that we maintain good communication with TCFM about our work. The TCFM website provides our meeting notes and other important documents. A chart summarizing the comparison of the three proposals is located there, as is the original RFP, and the Whole Builders proposal.

We would appreciate hearing your questions or comments. MOMSAH is scheduled to make a presentation at the Nov 30th Adult Education, and we specifically urge you to attend that gathering and to encourage others to do so as well.

In preparation for that gathering, we ask that we take just a few minutes now to have you indicate what you’d like to know or understand about what we are doing. Please know that MOMSAH members will be glad to hear from you about any ideas/questions or concerns that you might have.

Committee:

Anne Holzinger, Carolyn Carr , Dean Zimmermann, Elizabeth Barnard , Carol Bartoo , Greg Whitley Mott, Hobie Perry, Kiara Buchanan , Jeremy McAdams, Joe Landsberger, Lynn Cibuzar, Mike Cregan, Ralph Hilgendorf, Richard Fuller , Rob Axtmann, Valerie Stoehr

Attending:
Anne Holzinger, Carolyn Carr, Elizabeth Barnard, Carol Bartoo, Greg Whitley Mott, Hobie Perry, Jeremy McAdams, Joe Landsberger, Lynn Cibuzar, Mike Cregan, Ralph Hilgendorf, Richard Fuller, Valerie Stoehr

Not Attending
Dean Zimmerman, Elaine Martin, Kiara Buchanan, Rob Axtmann

We opened with silence.

1. Co-clerks and Interim Decision Group: Richard announced that he is stepping down as co-clerk of MOMSAH (as planned). EB will replace him as co-clerk. Carolyn will continue as co-clerk.

Richard will continue on the Interim Decision Group, along with Mike, Jeremy, Ralph and Carolyn. Others from MOMSAH are invited to join this group. At a future mtg, we will determine when this is no longer an “Interim” Decision Group, but the “official” Decision Group.

2. Review of Notes from the Oct 8th Mtg.
Carolyn and Mike provided clarification of the notes from Oct 8th, provided by email and in paper copies. Roof decisions have not been made at this time. Assistance with making this decision wisely is one of the services included in the Request for Proposals (RFP). Ralph stated that he is not attached to the idea of replacing the flat roof with a gable roof, particularly given information about the longer-lived membranes that exist today to repair the roof.

3. Circle Time – Richard asked for people to introduce themselves and describe their feelings about the status of things with MOMSAH – and these ranged widely from “good” to “deeply concerned”.

4. Discussion of the Interim Decision Group’s Recommendation
The Interim Decision Group (Richard, Carolyn, Mike, Jeremy and Ralph) met Nov 9th to review the 3 proposals submitted in response to the RFP. It was intended that Joe Landsberger be invited, but due to an email glitch he didn’t receive the invitation, and therefore did not attend. Apologies were made about this mixup.

The attached chart summarizes the evaluation of the 3 proposals. The Interim Decision Group found Whole Builders proposal to be a very good fit for TCFM’s needs and asked for MOMSAH to test this conclusion.

Issues raised:
Joe had a concern that the proposals did not provide sufficiently identify detailed tasks and provide detailed budgets, and that a particular firm he is was familiar with and had mentioned was not solicited to make a proposal.

Discussion followed:
In the course of exploring Joe’s concerns, the qualities of the proposals, and the RFP process, it was clarified that the Joint Committee of Mtghouse and Trustees (which preceded MOMSAH) considered the question of the kind of business from which to solicit proposals for this work. That Committee specifically chose to pursue proposals from Design/Build or Design/Bid/Build firms, rather than from General Contractors.

This decision about the type of firm to solicit was made before MOMSAH was formed. Several MOMSAH members had not served on the Joint Committee, and for these people, this piece of the history of earlier decision-making was new and very important information.

Differences between Design/Build, Design/Bid/Build and General Contractor firms:
Design/Build and Design/Bid/Build firms – These firms provide expertise to oversee an entire project from start to finish, including work to help define the scope of the project, but the form of their oversight differs. For both kinds of “Design/” firms, once the scope of the work is defined, in close collaboration with the client, specific task lists are identified and agreed upon, and then specific budgets for the tasks are provided in the form of a bid. Then work is agreed upon and conducted. In the Design/Build arrangement, firms do this design work and oversee all the implementation, which is done either by their own staff or the subcontractors they hire. In the Design/Bid/Build arrangement, firms do design work, then assist the client to obtain bids for the implementation, and the client ends up with two contracts – one for the Design work, and a separate one for the Build work, and the two firms work in coordination with each other for the client, us.

If TCFM were to work with a Design/Build firm, TCFM would still be provided bids for specific tasks, including those conducted by the firm’s own staff, or by other subcontractors, and would have the ability to obtain multiple bids for tasks. But, ultimately, we would have a single contract with the Design/Build company, and they would hire and oversee subcontractors, not us.

General Contractors – These firms provide expertise to oversee a project as a whole, but would not provide as much guidance in defining the scope of the work. In order to work most effectively with a general contractor, TCFM would need a very clear identification and prioritization of the work to be done, which can be a significant task unto itself.

Why did the Joint Committee decide to solicit proposals from Design/Build or Design/Bid/Build firms, rather than General Contractors?
Several members of the Jt Committee who are now members of MOMSAH shared their sense of the reasons for the Jt Committee’s decision:
- In the wake of the flood, a complicated set of related and unrelated problems with the Mtghouse were revealed, bit by bit. The Committee had already committed tremendous time just to identify the problems, and could see that solving these problems would require even more time and expertise – and quite simply, they felt overwhelmed.
-Furthermore, while Mtg does have attenders and members with extensive expertise who could help oversee such complex work, the Committee wanted to avoid the possibility of “burning out” these volunteers, which seemed quite possible, given the scale of the situation.
- TCFM will have to pay for the additional expertise provided in the “Design” component of the approach these two kinds of firms take – but the Joint Committee felt this would be a wise investment, as it would relieve volunteers from being responsible for such complicated work, and ensure consistent oversight.

About the apparent lack of budgetary detail in the proposals – they are not bids:
The Design/Build and Design/Bid/Build firms are providing a proposal for services at this stage, just as TCFM requested. A proposal proposes to work with the client to clarify the scope and solutions to pursue – and then will provide bids for the tasks to be done. A bid provides detailed costs for specific tasks already identified. Mike emphasized that in the course of working with a Design/Build or Design/Bid/Build firm, TCFM will have the opportunity to obtain multiple bids for the specific tasks of the construction work to be carried out, Mike added that it is possible to save money in the course of doing the construction with firms like these, because they can be more flexible than General Contractors in responding to new findings that happen in the course of the work.

It was an honest misunderstanding that the firm Joe mentioned had not been solicited. This happened because Jeremy had assumed the firm would not provide Design/Build or Design/Bid/Build services, but only General Contractor services. Joe accepted Jeremy’s apology for this oversight, and the expressed his appreciation for the work done by others to address the Mtghouse’s needs.

5. Selecting a firm
At this point, the group agreed to hear details from the Interim Decision Group regarding its recommendation that MOMSAH accept the proposal from Whole Builders.

As described in the summary chart, Whole Builders provided the most complete proposal, with more detail about tasks we have already identified, and a list of potential subcontractors. In addition, they commit to holding bimonthly meetings with us about the project, and to provide ongoing cost reporting as the implementation takes place. They have excellent experience with green building principles as well. In addition, Mike and Jeremy are both very pleased with their communication with the firm that’s taken place to date. Furthermore, Carolyn and Richard both have had good experiences with projects done by Whole Builders (Carolyn’s was a very small and recent project, and Richard’s was much larger and several years ago). Carol Bartoo noted that her son-in-law, Ralph Jacobson, was a member of this cooperative business many years ago, and she has high regard for them as well.

Carolyn urged MOMSAH to make this decision this evening, rather than to delay it by opening up the RFP process to other applicants, given the time and effort that’s already gone into obtaining proposals and the urgency of our work, particularly given the satisfaction the Interim Decision Group has with Whole Builders’ proposal.

After clarification from Joe that it would be agreeable for MOMSAH to proceed with a decision, MOMSAH united in approving the Whole Builders Proposal.

6. About Insurance:
Mike explained that TCFM will receive a check for $11,000 – half the insurance payment the TCFM expects. He added that TCFM does not appear to have a firm deadline for completing the work with the insurance company (we’ll receive more details about this at a later date – we were running short of time in the meeting at this point).

7. Adult Ed on Nov 30th
MOMSAH will be presenting at Nov 30th Adult Ed time. Further definition of the presentation will be done by email.

Adjourned at 9:30 or so.

Proposal for Phase I

Scope of Design/Build Services – Phase I
DESIGN/BUILD SERVICES
Whole Builders design/build services are typically a two-step process with separate design and construction contracts (See descriptions below).  Our initial contract is an architectural services agreement, based on a preliminary description of your needs, and our preliminary estimate of construction costs.  We will focus on your areas of highest priority, and make decisions about scope, budget, layout, details and finishes.

Our first step in the design process. will be to evaluate your project with Moldex, a mold abatement subcontractor.  It is important to determine how contained the mold has been, and if there is a chance the mold spores have been distributed to other parts of the structure.  Together with this subcontractor we will develop a strategy for containment of the areas affected by mold, so that demolition will not spread mold spores.  We can also determine the extent of demolition required to remove the mold.  Demolition could be focused just on the specific areas that have mold.  An alternative would be to completely gut the exterior walls of the apartment so that all areas could be inspected.  Then new foam insulation could be installed at the perimeter.  This would provide the best insulation for this area.  This would require removal and re-installing of all interior casing and base.  Other spaces would be left with the original insulation.

A preliminary evaluation of your mechanical systems would be done by Sayler HVAC, our mechanical subcontractor.  This would allow minor adjustments that would facilitate work undertaken during Phase II.

At this point we would be able to review with you the options for repairs.  We would then define and document the scope of demolition, construction and repair required through drawings and specifications.  We would then bring in our subcontractors to verify costs and provide bids for the work.  Once we have made the final structural, layout and finish decisions and Construction Documents are completed, we will finalize our costs and provide you with a construction contract.

ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES – PHASE I                       Max.  10% of Construction Cost
Preliminary Construction Estimate – $55,500 – 90,000, described in the “Construction Services” description which follows.  Consideration of “Alternatives” identified in the construction phase may require additional fees.

Scope or Permit drawings and specifications may be required for portions of the work.  We can provide architectural services where necessary on an hourly basis.  Typically architectural and design services average 5-10% of construction costs.  Costs are affected by the complexity of the project and the details required to accurately describe the scope.  Meetings are included in this estimate.  Basic consultation on green choices are included in this estimate. If TCFM wants to evaluate the entire facility relative to LEED and/or other green guidelines, additional time would be required (see below).

Owner to supply copies of existing drawings.
Evaluate information relative to mold abatement, and recommend strategy for containment.
Define scope of mold containment, demolition, repair and reconstruction.
Specify replacement windows and details for installation
Recommend insulation options for apartment and entire roof area.

Compensation for direct expenses and for services rendered by Whole Builders, and professional consultants shall be based on the following:
Direct Expenses            At 1.15 x Cost
Architects rate:             $100.00/hour
Support staff:                $50 – 75.00/hour
Engineer/Consultants    At 1.25 x Cost ($75.00 – $150.00 / hour)

Alternatives :

LEED / Green Design Strategies    $4,000    40 hrs. x $100/hr.
Work with Owner to identify opportunities for points.  Site issues, Water efficiency, Energy and Atmosphere – rehab, operations and maintenance, Materials and Resources, Indoor Environmental Quality – ventilation, controls, day-lighting, green cleaning, and Innovation.

Many points may be earned by TCFM adopting policies relative to operations, maintenance and cleaning.  Others require documentation of previous energy use, and monitoring of on-going energy use after renovations are made.  We can work closely with a TCFM representative to gather the information necessary and develop a system for monitoring energy and operations.

CONSTRUCTION SERVICES  PHASE I            Prelminary Estimate        $55,500 – 90,000  ***

Depends on scope of work selected
Cost is dependent on extent of demolition at walls and ceiling, (from two ft. at base to removing all of exterior drywall and insulation) and the mold containment and abatement required.  Extent of demolition affects amount of trim and finishes to be removed and replaced, and finished.

Demolition at apartment    $3,000 – 8,000
Demolition of contaminated materials and mold abatement below the ceiling line.
Second floor sheetrock ceiling and insulation
Second floor walls, rotten exterior wall framing and insulation adjacent to replacement windows
Remove Carpet in FIR apartment.

Reconstruction Exterior Envelope and Interior    $22,500 – 46,000
Reconstruction, sealing, insulating, patching or covering of exterior envelope (exterior walls and windows to stop further moisture and thermal infiltration).
Replace framing, sheetrock and insulation.
Install insulation throughout the second floor.
Replace any exterior stucco that is water damaged.
Tape, patch, and prime and paint all repaired walls on second floor

Windows  ($2,500 – 3,000 per window x 12 windows)    $30,000 – 36,000
New windows or window retrofits in the FIR apartment and the bridge.  Includes removal of existing window, reframing as necessary, install new windows and trim.

For construction, we propose working with you on a cost plus basis, with a 25% markup on materials and subcontractors managed by Whole Builders, and $50 – 75/hr. for labor and project coordination by Whole Builders personnel.  If there are areas of work that you decide to take on yourselves, we can provide advice and assistance on a consulting basis during construction.  For example you may purchase the carpet directly, and perform the painting yourselves.

Our final proposal would include a permit, contractor overhead and profit, construction coordination – including weekly meetings, dumpsters, temporary toilets, scaffolding, dust protection, demolition and cleanup as required for the scope.

Alternative Items:
1. Gable Roof    $100,000    + or -
Construct a gable roof system in place of the existing flat roof with work to include:  a.  Demo of single ply throughout and decking on west half.  b.  Relocation of existing roof top unit at grade level and reroute ductwork distribution with design to be recommended.  c.  Additional insulation above the existing roof deck above the meeting room.

2.  Green Roof    $100,000    + or -
Construct a green roof system in place of the existing flat roof with work to include:  a.  Demo of single ply throughout and decking on west half.  b.  Frame out curbing for future roof top unit above FIR apartment.

3.  Side wall Sprinkler heads    $________    To be determined
Eliminate the exiting overhead sprinkler system in the meeting room and replace with sidewall heads as code requires.

4. Patch Ceiling at Meeting Room    $6,500
Tape, patch, retexture/paint the ceiling in the meeting room.

Proposal for Phase II

Scope of Design/Build Services – Phase II

DESIGN/BUILD SERVICES
Whole Builders design/build services are typically a two-step process with separate design and construction contracts (See descriptions below). Our initial contract is an architectural services agreement, based on a preliminary description of your needs, and our preliminary estimate of construction costs. We will focus on your areas of highest priority, and make decisions about scope, budget, layout, details and finishes.

ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES – PHASE II Pre-Design + Max. 10% of Construction Cost

I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Evaluation and upgrade of spaces in TCFM including remodeling and/or finishes. Improvements to spaces to repair or replace interior finishes, that have been damaged or worn, with green and sustainable finishes. A primary goal is to reduce, minimize and eliminate materials that affect those with chemical or pollutant sensitivities or allergies. All work to be done with consideration for long-term environmental sustainability.

Reconstruction of interior finishes as necessary at the Meeting and Fellowship rooms, and the library, bathrooms and non-critical entry areas.

Evaluate mechanical, plumbing and electrical systems for energy efficiency. Consider a new HVAC systems at FIR apartment. Consider an upgraded or new HVAC or an in-floor heating system for the basement. Evaluate air quality and moisture issues relative to apartment and basement. Consider energy recovery ventilator, dehumidification and air purification. Moisture at basement may require earth re-grading, especially outside of Fellowship room.

Construction work to be completed with minimal disruption to TCFM activities. Quaker events include Meetings for Worship on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings, adjacent fellowship and discussion time and committee meetings. There are additional non-Quaker events and meetings.

Alternatives to be investigated include: installing in-floor heating and cooling in basement floor, reprogramming of FIR apartment to be a classroom and meeting area, roof redesign, upgrade of floor finishes in fellowship room and other basement rooms, upgrade of fixtures for water conservation, including toilets, sink faucets and shower, and motion sensors on lights.

II. ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES FOR THE PROJECT DESCRIBED INCLUDE:

Pre-Design $3,000
Develop concept to define the scope of the renovation. Evaluation of mechanical and electrical systems by subcontractors. Identify potential structural issues. Program confirmation and conceptual diagrams to communicate construction work identified and alternatives being considered to TCFM at large. Work with joint committee to schedule completion of documents and start of and phasing of construction.

Additional work described below, only with approval from Owner:

Based on Maximum 10% of Construction Cost
Fees described below are based on preliminary estimates of construction costs described in the “Construction Services” description which follows, and are for discussion only. Actual costs will be affected by scope of work selected. Consideration of “Alternatives” may require additional fees.

Schematic Design – 20% $1,650 – 3,100
Owner to provide plans. Verify Measurements & Layout sketches and diagrams of alternatives. Evaluate mechanical systems. Plan and elevation of options with cost parameters. 2-D or 3-D exterior and/or interior drawings of project. Bi-weekly meetings to review ideas/options relative to client needs. Assist with government review processes. Presentation to the TCFM building committee.

Design Development – 15% $1,200 – 2,500
Refine desired option relative to structure, layout, interior design and details, and cost considerations. Material and color selections. Bi-weekly client meetings to review ideas and details. Report to monthly Meeting for Business.

Construction Documents – 40% $3,000 – 6,200
Site Plan, Floor Plans, Structural Design, Exterior Elevations, Sections, Details, Interior Elevations, Specification of materials, Cabinet Shop Drawings. Weekly or bi-weekly client meetings to review final details. Revised cost estimates at 50% completion. Assist with government review processes. Report to monthly Meeting for Business.

Construction Contract Negotiation – 5% $350 – 700
Review bids and/or negotiate contract.

Construction Administration – 20% $1,500 – 3,000
Periodic site visits during construction. Review changes, verify existing or new conditions, and answer questions. Weekly or bi-weekly client meetings to review installation details.

TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $7,700 – 15,500

III. OWNER RESPONSIBILITIES:
A. Provide existing plans and information regarding project objectives, schedule, constraints, and budget.
B. Provide site survey including topography if requested by Architect
C. Furnish structural, mechanical or chemical tests, tests for hazardous materials, or other tests or inspections required by law or the project.
D. Provide information on selected fixtures and/or appliances.
E. Make decisions expeditiously.

IV. COMPENSATION
for direct expenses and for services rendered by Whole Builders, and professional consultants shall be based on the following:
Direct Expenses At 1.15 x Cost
Architects rate: $100.00/hour
Support staff: $50 – 75.00/hour
Engineer/Consultants At 1.25 x Cost ($75.00 – $150.00 / hour)

The Design services listed are estimated at: $7,700 – 15,500, based on 10% of a $77,000 – 155,000 estimated of construction costs. Actual design cost may vary as costs are billed on an hourly basis. Costs to date will be reviewed after each phase is completed. We require a retainer of $1,000 to commence work on this project. This retainer will be credited towards the final payment.

Reimbursable expenses include: long distance communication; reproduction and mailing; and Owner requested models, renderings or mockups.

Invoices will be presented monthly Payments due WHOLE BUILDERS COOPERATIVE shall be due in full upon receipt of the invoice. A service charge of 1.5% per month (18% per year) will be applied against unpaid bills, from date of invoice.

Alternatives :

LEED / Green Design Strategies $4,000 40 hrs. x $100/hr.
Work with Owner to identify opportunities for LEED points. Site issues, Water efficiency, Energy and Atmosphere – rehab, operations and maintenance, Materials and Resources, Indoor Environmental Quality – ventilation, controls, day-lighting, green cleaning, and Innovation.

Many points may be earned by TCFM adopting policies relative to operations, maintenance and cleaning. Others require documentation of previous energy use, and monitoring of on-going energy use after renovations are made. We can work closely with a TCFM representative to gather the information necessary and develop a system for monitoring energy and operations.

Registering the project with the USGBC is not included at this time.

CONSTRUCTION SERVICES PHASE II Preliminary Estimate $77,000 – 155,000 ***

Depends on scope of work selected
Cost is dependent on extent of demolition at walls and ceiling. Extent of demolition affects amount of trim and finishes to be removed and replaced, and finished. Consider sustainable green materials, finishes and systems in all areas.

New HVAC at Apartment $25,000 – 30,000
New heating and air conditioning system in the FIR apartment and ventilation of roof cavity
Consider energy efficiency, heat recovery ventilator, dehumidification, and air purification.

Reconstruction Meeting and Fellowship $10,000 – 30,000
Reconstruction of any interior finishes.

Reconstruction of Ancillary Spaces $12,000 – 25,000
Reconstruction of interior finishes on any ancillary spaces in the MH including the library, bathrooms and non-critical entry areas.

New/Upgrade HVAC at Basement $25,000 – 50, 000
New heating and air conditioning system and/or updating of furnace or other air quality upgrades to the basement.
Consider energy efficiency, heat recovery ventilator, dehumidification, and air purification.

Earth Re-grading $5,000 – 20,000
Earth re-grading, especially outside Fellowship Room. Depends on extent of landscaping required.

For construction we propose working with you on a cost plus basis, with a 25% markup on materials and subcontractors managed by Whole Builders, and $50 – 75/hr. for labor and project coordination by Whole Builders personnel. If there are areas of work that you decide to take on yourselves, we can provide advice and assistance on a consulting basis during construction. For example you may purchase the carpet directly, and perform the painting yourselves.

Our final proposal would include a permit, contractor overhead and profit, construction coordination – including weekly meetings, dumpsters, temporary toilets, scaffolding, dust protection, demolition and cleanup as required for the scope.

Alternative Items:
1. Install in-floor heating and cooling in basement floor. $30,000 – 50,000

2. Reprogram FIR apartment $5,000 – 25,000
To be a classroom and meeting area. Depends on physical space, mechanical and electrical requirements.

3. Roof Redesign – Gable or Green $100,000 + or -

4. Upgrade floor finishes $10 – 15 per sq. ft.
In fellowship room or elsewhere in basement

5. Upgrade plumbing fixtures $500 – 1,000 per fixture
For water conservation, including toilets, sink faucets and shower.

6. Motion sensors on lights. $150 per switch

*** CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATES

Whole Builders’ remodeling experience allows us to be as accurate as possible regarding our estimates. It is in all of our best interests to provide realistic costs that we can stand behind, we do not low-ball estimates. Currently our industry is experiencing unpredictable material cost fluctuations.

Our estimates for your project are based on our discussion and computer guesstimates. Specific fixtures and finishes were not identified at this time. While these estimates are accurate for the scope of work described, they are for the purpose of discussion and discovery. This preliminary cost estimate is provided so that the scope of the project can be refined and for the details to be discovered.  We may not have accounted for certain aspects of the project during this initial attempt to provide a preliminary cost estimate. We caution, that in our initial estimates, assumptions were made. We anticipate and welcome a mutual re-evaluation of the costs associated with this estimate.

All material, method, and design choices have multiple affects on costs. Any decisions that can be made initially will allow us to better estimate the costs and arrive at a contract for your approval. As we move towards providing construction documents, some choices may still remain undecided and may be included as allowances.

Whole Builders advises all of our clients that existing and evolving unknown conditions are an unavoidable element of the remodeling process and may be associated with: Mechanical system(s) and routing, Electrical system(s) and routing, substrate preparations, Structural framing requirements, Code compliance issues, Etc…

Whole Builders provides constant onsite supervision of the entire project by a Whole Builders’ construction coordinator. The construction coordinator keeps you informed of all the elements of your project, supervises the sub contractors, and maintains the schedule.

As part of our construction contract a cost spreadsheet will be provided that accurately provides the client with all cost information, updated bi-weekly. Costs will be reviewed during project meetings and all discoveries shall be quantified as necessary. Prices are subject to material cost increases beyond our control. No changes in the project will be under-taken without prior written approval of the Owner(s). Decisions and selections will affect the costs associated with the estimated contract sum. Whole Builders reserves the right to correct mathematical and typographical errors.

Our goal is to narrow the focus of this project so we may move forward, define a contract, and arrive at a cost that is as accurate as possible with regards to client choices and concerns.

Unknown conditions may exist and can affect costs. Likely areas of unknown conditions include: soil conditions, demolition, structural framing requirements, existing structural damage, finish preparations, mechanical systems, system(s) routing, and code compliance.

Introduction

On Jan. 26, 2008, a sprinkler pipe burst above the Meetinghouse (MH) apartment, spraying water down into the space. With some investigation, Friends found that this was just part of several problems with the MH building, some of which must be as old as the addition. The MH committee began to investigate the problems, but the scale of the damage and deterioration to the MH demanded the involvement of the trustees, who engage on capital projects and expenditures. The MH committee and trustees have been meeting jointly to move forward with this work. That is, they have jump-started assessments of the damage to the MH, taken steps to control the damage and spread of contaminants, taken steps to limit exposure of the Friends in Residence (FIR, members who live and work in the MH apartment), identified larger goals and potential work that may be part of the renovation. This RFP comes out the work of this joint committee, but the architect will meet with the newly formed ad hoc building committee – which has taken over responsibility for the MH renovation. This is generally referred to as MOMSAH.

Description of Project

TCFM is planning a renovation that will take place in at least two phases. We have begun with some testing of the extent of damage to the building. Assessment of the extent of damage to roof and exterior walls is currently being contracted to Inspec. The reconstruction of the roof may also be contracted to Inspec, or it will be done in phase I. The subject of this RFP is phase I, will include abatement and repair of the walls and perhaps of the roof. This will be contracted to an architect, builder or design builder. A second phase will cover interior reconstruction and finishes. The first phase of construction should begin the fall of 2008, while the second phase of construction should begin early in 2009, though the timing for the latter depends on the results of a capital campaign.

There are several priorities that inform how we wish to proceed, including the following:

MH Activities The renovation should address the prescient failures of the current building, while minimally disrupting TCFM activities. These include Quaker events like Meetings for Worship on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings, adjacent fellowship and discussion time, and committee meetings, but also non-Quaker events and group meetings. Friends are equally concerned about the length of time in which the apartment will need to be vacated. This unit houses the Friends in Residence (FIR) who are a continual presence in the MH, coordinating MH events, cleaning and maintaining the building. These Friends are necessarily being housed elsewhere while work on the FIR apartment is completed, which is inconvenient and costly for the FIR and for TCFM.

Allergies and other sensitivities The building should be habitable for those with chemical or pollutant sensitivities or allergies. Mold abatement in particular and all construction in general can require certain toxic substances which may cause problems for more sensitive members and attendees of TCFM. Whenever possible, the work should use minimally toxic procedures and materials, and notice will need to be given to TCFM in advance of work that may cause particular difficulty. Construction should be staged in such a way as to separate occupied from unoccupied spaces. Procedures that are absolutely necessary to ensure the health of building occupants will be staged and scheduled to have the least possible effect on TCFM activities.

Building Sustainability Any work done on the TCFM MH (MH) should be done with consideration for long-term environmental sustainability. Where building structure and TCFM budgets permit, and with the aid of green building experts as needed, the project should incorporate as many sustainable design solutions as possible. Once the phase II work is complete, it should qualify as a certified building, based on the LEED EB 2009 guidelines, though TCFM does not wish to register the building with the USGBC. If the Architect can demonstrate that another set of sustainability guidelines will stand in place of LEED, then they may be used in place of LEED.

Communication of Work Because decision-making in a Quaker Meeting requires the participation of many, the joint committee has made a commitment to communicate decisions and activities and to involve the broader community in decision-making on the renovation work. Regular reports will be made to the monthly Meeting for Business (MWB) and threshing sessions or special meetings will be held as necessary to validate project scope. The architect or builder will be expected to attend and present to at least two of such meetings. Meanwhile, all committee meetings are open to those interested in listening or providing input.

General Description

Original house: 2,525 SF
TCFM Addition: completed 1992-93, 5,450+- SF

The current building deterioration seems to be traceable to deviations from the building design and from normal wear-and-tear. We have identified several distinct problems in the design or construction of the MH.

Mold in FIR apartment, bridge and meeting room: Significant levels of mold have been detected, and especially in the ceiling and some walls of the FIR apartment. In part this may be traceable to the fact that while three HVAC systems specified in the addition bid documents, only two were installed. Poor installation of windows and the design of the roof cavity may also be contributing factors.

Design construction problems with the addition ceiling cavity: The ceiling cavity just under the roof membrane was initially filled entirely with blown-in fiberglass insulation. Over time this settled and compacted until it had fallen below a length of sprinkler piping. On Jan. 26, 2008, this pipe burst, and the outcome of that explosion is what motivated us to investigate the ceiling and walls of the addition. We have initiated an insurance claim to cover damage from this failure.

Leaking of the addition membrane roof: Neither the burst pipe nor condensation in the ceiling cavity can be blamed for all of the moisture in the addition roof and walls of the northwest corner of the MH. The membrane roof has been compromised. Whether from holes or from condensation, there may be considerable rot and softening of the roof decking, according to Roof Spec and Inspec, one of whom will be contracted to evaluate the damage and propose solutions. By the same token, the exterior walls – stucco and cedar siding clad stick framed – have also been compromised.

Window deterioration: Windows that were installed in the stucco walls of the addition also show signs of water penetration, encouraging condensation at the sills. This is due to incorrect installation. Some of these may be retrofitted to correct the problem, while others may need to be replaced according to a Marvin Windows agent that looked at the damaged windows. The windows are now out of warranty.

Dampness and condensation in the basement level: This has been a problem for many years, evident in the presence of mold and a high level of humidity. A dehumidifier runs continually, and the carpet was replaced in the basement fellowship room in 2004, due to complaints from sensitive users of the space. Even so, the complaints have never entirely ceased from those with sensitivities to mold and allergens. The addition bid documents called for an air conditioning unit in the addition basement, which would have reduced the air humidity. This was never installed, and no other long-term strategies were employed to lower basement humidity.

At this point in an effort to button up the roof while weather permits Inspec’s will oversee the design and construction management of the new single ply roof membrane, deck replacement and mold abatement of the decking joist structure. The joint MH Committee and Trustees recommends the following work on the MH, in order of importance:

• ? (Inspec) permanent replacement of roof assembly and framing of roof curb and cap of roof top HVAC unit for future installation.
• ? (Phase I) Demolition of contaminated materials and mold abatement below the ceiling line.
• ? (Phase I) Reconstruction, sealing, insulating, patching or covering of exterior envelope (exterior walls and windows) as to stop further moisture and thermal infiltration
• ? (Phase I) New windows or window retrofits in the FIR apartment, the bridge.
• ? (Phase I) Reconstruction of interior floor framing and decking contaminated by mold
• ? (Phase II) New heating and air conditioning system in the FIR apartment and ventilation of roof cavity
• ? (Phase II) Reconstruction of any interior finishes necessary for use of Meeting and Fellowship rooms
• ? (Phase II) Reconstruction of any interior finishes on any ancillary spaces in the MH including the library, bathrooms and non-critical entry areas
• ? (Phase II) HVAC and/or updating of furnace or other air quality upgrades to the basement
• ? (Phase II) Earth re-grading, especially outside Fellowship room

Where possible the work should be staged as to limit disruption of TCFM operations and coordinate with weather, while also following procedures for maintaining construction indoor environmental quality. The project is likely to require phasing in order to track with available capital budgets.

Scope of Services

The scope of Phase I work includes but is not limited to the following:
• ? Demolition and mold abatement of second floor sheetrock ceiling and insulation.
• ? Demolition and mold abatement of second floor walls, rotten exterior wall framing and insulation adjacent to replacement windows.
• ? Demolition of carpet in FIR apartment
• ? Replacement of damaged windows
• ? Replacement of framing, sheetrock and insulation.
• ? Installation of insulation throughout the second floor.
• o Insulation and vapor barrier to be recommended by design build contractor
• ? Replacement of any exterior stucco that is water damaged upon investigation of interior wall removal.
• ? Tape, patch, and prime paint all repaired walls on second floor.

Phase I alternatives:
1. Construct a gable roof system in place of the existing flat roof with work to include:
a. Demo of single ply throughout and decking on west half
b. Relocation of existing roof top unit at grade level and reroute duct work distribution with design to be recommended by design build contractor
c. Additional insulation above the existing roof deck above the meeting room.
2. Construct a green roof system in place of the existing flat roof with work to include:
a. Demo of single ply throughout and decking on west half
b. Frame out curbing for future roof top unit above FIR apartment
3. Eliminate the existing overhead sprinkler system in the meeting room and replace with side wall heads as code requires.
4. Tape, patch, retexture/paint the ceiling in the meeting room.

In addition, the architect will work with MOMSAH to schedule for completion of documents as needed and start of and phasing of construction. The architect or builder will be responsible for structural and systems assessments not done by TCFM.

The architect or builder will not be responsible for registering the project with the USGBC, but he or she will be responsible for designing the renovation and managing construction such that the project meets the requirements for a certified building per LEED Existing Buildings 2009. The architect will need to communicate green design strategies and compliance to TCFM.

The architects will also assist with any government review processes that are required throughout the course of the project. The principal architect or builder will participate in this open process, attending at least two TCFM business meetings or MOMSAH meetings.

Fee Proposal

Fees should be presented for the preliminary scope as outlined under “General Description” and “Scope of Services.”

Additional Fees
Please provide a schedule

Form and Contents of Proposal

Proposal Form: Provide four (4) bound copies of your proposal plus one (1) copy clipped together to aid document reproduction.

Proposal Contents:
•  Scope of Services – Describe how services will be provided, including a detailed listing and description of tasks and deliverables.
•  Experience and Capacity – Describe background and experience of the firm demonstrating ability to provide required services.
•  References – List references from contracts similar in size and scope and other relevant projects.
•  Personnel – Identify involved professionals with resumes and specific application experience including consultants.
•  Cost – Indicate proposed cost of services, including budget determination and a schedule that details estimated additional services – with a not-to-exceed hourly fee – and reimbursable expenses.
•  RFP Submittal – Write the title of the RFP on the front of the envelope. Send five (5) copies of the proposal to:
Jeremy McAdams
3324 18th Ave. S.
Apartment 1
Minneapolis, MN 55407

Proposals should be postmarked by October 31, 2008

Contacts

You may contact the following with questions about the MH or if you would like to gain access to it: Jeremy McAdams, 612.205.8599, jeremym@alumni.upenn.edu
Mike Cregan, 651.295.2358, Michael.Cregan@Donaldson.com

Evaluation Criteria

•  Quality, thoroughness and clarity of proposal as pertinent to the project description
•  Responsibilities of key individuals on this project and availability
•  Qualifications and experience of key professionals, particularly related to church projects, community center facilities, mold abatement and renovations
•  Knowledge of sustainable architecture principles, and qualifications and experience of key professionals in sustainable architecture practices
•  Comfort and experience with working with a client that values participatory decision-making process
• ? Racial, gender and cultural diversity in composition of key individuals
• ? Cost of services proposed

Schedule

Architect/Builder Selection
•  Proposals due (postmarked): Oct 31, 2008
•  Committee review of Proposals: Nov 10, 2008
•  Firms notified of selection decision: Nov 12, 2008
•  Contract negotiations with selected firm: Nov 13, 2008
•  Project Start: Nov 17, 2008

Basketball court

Synopsis of the notes from the MOMSAH meeting of October 8, 2008

1. Update from Mike

We have the results of Inspec’s evaluation of the roof – what we might call Phase O. This investigation/report cost $6000.

Perhaps most important piece of information is that Inspec can do a flat roof year round, as long as they have a few clear days with low winds.

Consequently – we have time to really explore doing a gable roof instead, or even a green roof as well.

To that end, Mike compiled his guesstimate of a comparison of costs of flat roof vs. gable, based on information from Inspec and Buck Brothers. This 1 page chart was also emailed to everyone in advance. Flat roof is $116K; Gable roof is $160K.

More about Inspec’s Report:
Eval of Roof – has a parapet wall, it’s fire rated, goes to the deck and isolates attic spaces, so there are 2 halves to the roof, and we should consider them separately:
West half of roof — FIR side of the building
Moisture damage is so bad, it will need be bared to the ribs to expose the joist system
Microbe cleaning will be done
New roof system will probably have suspended ceiling inside of the sheetrock system

East half of roof – Mtg room side
Samples of structural wood are very dry– looks good
Has original sprinkler system that’s like the one that failed on the W side.

What about sprinkler system?
If we do a flat roof:
West side — we have to replace the sprinkler system that failed. We’d put in a wall system, rather than a roof system.

East side –-
- Option 1 – keep the roof system (the one like it failed on the west side, but wouldn’t necessarily expect it to fail on the east side, as that cavity stays heated by duct work).
- Option 2 – we put in matching wall sprinkler system, like one we’ll install on the West side. Doing this would require new piping.

If we do a gable roof:
Both halves of the roof would have a new system…. and this would include installing a small sheetrock soffit.

Eval of Wall system – stucco (yes, we do have real stucco, not the imitation)
Stud side of all windows will need to be exposed.
Inspect the back side (inside) of all stucco.

Findings:
On E side wall of Mtgroom – -found moisture from roof down the wall almost ¾ to the ground. Will need to investigate this when dealing with the roof. May require working on this from inside – this was not expected.

Shakes need help – many have cupping. Will need to replace some of the bad ones.
Proper care involves light sandblasting, staining, and then restaining every 5 years.

Ways to think about the cost differences of a flat and gable roof:
Gable costs $44K more. Using today’s materials, a basic flat roof will have to be replaced in 15 to 20 yrs., and a gable lasts 40-50 yrs?. But – a better flat roof can be built, at 50% more cost (for only the high-tech membrane, labor would be the same), and would be a 35-40 yr roof.

Green Roof Option:
Inspecs just finished the largest green roof on Target Center. Their Groundwater division took care of this – they have experience and can help us think wisely about this. It’s costly: $250 – $350/sq ft for the green roof system alone, which does not include the work to beef up both sides of trusses. Compare this with $100 – $125 / sq ft. for a conventional roof.

Design expenses
A Flat Roof –
Inspec does Design for flat roof – they’d design it, bid it out, find the contractors to install it.

A Gable Roof –
MOMSAH puts this work in an RFP, and a different firm could/would do the design, other than Inspec – likely a design/build firm.

Chemical Sensitivities:
We agreed we need to anticipate how to really engage on this topic. Ann will be in touch with Mike and Jeremy about this. Others expressed interest as well.

Jeremy’s update:
Firms expressing interest in bidding on Phase I and II:
Buck Bros
Whole Builders
Locus Architects – Design/Build

About Phase II RFP – it already went out, and assumed the FIR apt as is – with no reprogramming. Jeremy says this is not a problem, as some reprogramming of space is not uncommon as a project advances – not a big deal. The firm will be able to assist us in that process, in fact.

Next Steps:
Jeremy will receive and circulate the proposals, and then MOMSAH will discuss them at the Nov 10th Mtg. We talked about having a small group take a cut at them first.

A brainstorm to hang on to:
Elaine suggests: let’s create a handicapped accessible bathroom on the 2nd level – it’s needed, as it’s a floor accessible by the elevator.

Reprogramming
The RESULTS of Oct 10 MFB: MfB decided that co-clerks will organize Called Mtgs for Business on the topic of Reprogramming – NOT MOMSAH…., and the co-clerks will ask Mtghouse FDS and MOMSAH to help prepare. More from the co-clerks will follow…..

Construction Timeline:
Mike will get insurance info.
This works like payment for a wrecked car – you get a bid for the repair and it’s covered, or you get a certain amt of cash for the kind of damage you suffered, but you don’t plan to actually repair it, and instead do something else. Since TCFM won’t simply be repairing the simple bits of damage, but doing lots of other additional work, we have to simply get the payout.

Status of the Roof:
Reasons to act fast to repair the roof:
- Not so much about the roof itself – we have 1-3 yrs of remaining function from the existing roof
- Dislocation of the FIRs and related issues
- High heating prices – air gets in and out of the bldg more easily right now/ because of lack of insulation, etc…

Reasons to be less rushed:
- You get the best pricing for work if you put out a bid early for work to be done with an eye to the builder’s other jobs and timeline.

Fundraising is NOT MOMSAH’s job. We can oversee the spending the $$. But others need to raise it.

Results: At Oct 20 MfB, we recommended that TCFM start a fundraising effort about the repairs. MfB felt ths was premature, and that more information was needed first.

The Interim Decision Group
MOMSAH agrees that we want a small group of people committed to deal with interim decision-making, when circumstances require this.

Mike and Jeremy are Technical Advisors, and Ralph, Richard, and Carolyn are willing to serve on the Decision Group.
This size group is OK for now. We aren’t ready for construction yet, so it’s not pressing that we finalize this. But we should continue to revisit it. We’d prefer not to have people rotating in and out of this role – for continuity’s sake.

Expectations
- group works together very tightly –on call, basically – during construction.
- needs to help keep things on track with the $$.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This document is getting older by the day, and it’s pretty technical–it’s in architects-speak. Still, MOMSAH wanted this to be out in the community where anyone could find it because it gives a good overview of the issues we were facing in August, 2008.

Before an architectural firm offers us a proposal they will combine a careful study of this document with a “Walk-through” of the building and the damage assessment being compiled by the highly-regarded company Inspec. Inspec’s work is the official description of the condition of the building, highlighting the consequences of the water damage. Their report is the document which will be the legal basis of Architects’ bids, and if there are problems down the road, we will rely on this official description, as well as the official Request For Proposals, below. We expect Inspec’s report around the end of September, 2008.

THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS

Twin Cities Friends Meeting (TCFM) Meetinghouse Committee/ Trustees
Request for Proposals – September 10, 2008
Architectural, Interior, and Engineering Services for TCFM, 1725 Grand Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55105

Introduction

On Jan. 26, 2008, a sprinkler pipe burst above the Meetinghouse (MH) apartment, spraying water down into the space.  With some investigation, Friends found that this was just part of several problems with the MH building, some of which must be as old as the addition.  The MH committee began to investigate the problems, but the scale of the damage and deterioration to the MH demanded the involvement of the trustees, who engage on capital projects and expenditures.  The MH committee and trustees have been meeting jointly to move forward with this work.  That is, they have jump-started assessments of the damage to the MH, taken steps to control the damage and spread of contaminants, taken steps to limit exposure of the Friends in Residence (FIR, members who live and work in the MH apartment), identified larger goals and potential work that may be part of the renovation.  This RFP comes out the work of this joint committee, but the architect will meet with the newly formed ad hoc building committee – which has taken over responsibility for the MH renovation.  This is generally referred to as MOMSAH.

Description of Project

TCFM is planning a renovation that will take place in at least two phases.  The first phase of work will include mold abatement and repair of the exterior envelope.  Assessment of the extent of damage to roof and exterior walls is currently being contracted to Inspec, while abatement and repair will be contracted to an architect, builder or design builder.  The second phase is the subject of this RFP – and will be led by an architect.  The first phase of construction should begin the fall of 2008, while the second phase of construction should begin early in 2009, though the timing for the latter depends on the results of a capital campaign.

There are several priorities that inform how we wish to proceed, including the following:

MH Activities The renovation should address the prescient failures of the current building, while minimally disrupting TCFM activities.  These include Quaker events like Meetings for Worship on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings, adjacent fellowship and discussion time, and committee meetings, but also non-Quaker events and group meetings.  Friends are equally concerned about the length of time in which the apartment will need to be vacated.  This unit houses the Friends in Residence (FIR) who are a continual presence in the MH, coordinating MH events, cleaning and maintaining the building.  These Friends are necessarily being housed elsewhere while work on the FIR apartment is completed, which is inconvenient and costly for the FIR and for TCFM.

Allergies and other sensitivities The building should be habitable for those with chemical or pollutant sensitivities or allergies.  Mold abatement in particular and all construction in general can require certain toxic substances which may cause problems for more sensitive members and attendees of TCFM.  Whenever possible, the work should use minimally toxic procedures and materials, and notice will need to be given to TCFM in advance of work that may cause particular difficulty.  Construction should be staged in such a way as to separate occupied from unoccupied spaces. Procedures that are absolutely necessary to ensure the health of building occupants will be staged and scheduled to have the least possible effect on TCFM activities.

Building Sustainability Any work done on the TCFM MH (MH) should be done with consideration for long-term environmental sustainability.  Where building structure and TCFM budgets permit, and with the aid of green building experts as needed, the project should incorporate as many sustainable design solutions as possible.  Once the work is complete, it should qualify as a certified building, based on the LEED EB 2009 guidelines, though TCFM does not wish to register the building with the USGBC.  If the Architect can demonstrate that another set of sustainability guidelines will stand in place of LEED, then they may be used in place of LEED.

Communication of Work Because decision-making in a Quaker Meeting requires the participation of many, the joint committee has made a commitment to communicate decisions and activities and to involve the broader community in decision-making on the renovation work.  Regular reports will be made to the monthly Meeting for Business (MWB) and threshing sessions or special meetings will be held as necessary to validate project scope.  The architect will be expected to attend and present to at least three of such meetings.  Meanwhile, all committee meetings are open to those interested in listening or providing input.

General Description

Original house: 2,525 SF
TCFM Addition: completed 1992-93, 5,450+- SF

The current building deterioration seems to be traceable to deviations from the building design and from normal wear-and-tear.  We have identified several distinct problems in the design or construction of the MH.

Mold in FIR apartment, bridge and meeting room:  Significant levels of mold have been detected, and especially in the ceiling and some walls of the FIR apartment.  In part this may be traceable to the fact that while three HVAC systems specified in the addition bid documents, only two were installed.  Poor installation of windows and the design of the roof cavity may also be contributing factors.

Design construction problems with the addition ceiling cavity: The ceiling cavity just under the roof membrane was initially filled entirely with blown-in fiberglass insulation.  Over time this settled and compacted until it had fallen below a length of sprinkler piping.  On Jan. 26, 2008, this pipe burst, and the outcome of that explosion is what motivated us to investigate the ceiling and walls of the addition.  We have initiated an insurance claim to cover damage from this failure.

Leaking of the addition membrane roof: Neither the burst pipe nor condensation in the ceiling cavity can be blamed for all of the moisture in the addition roof and walls of the northwest corner of the MH.  The membrane roof has been compromised.  Whether from holes or from condensation, there may be considerable rot and softening of the roof decking, according to Roof Spec and Inspec, one of whom will be contracted to evaluate the damage and propose solutions.  By the same token, the exterior walls – stucco and cedar siding clad stick framed – have also been compromised.

Window deterioration:  Windows that were installed in the stucco walls of the addition also show signs of water penetration, encouraging condensation at the sills.  This is due to incorrect installation.  Some of these may be retrofitted to correct the problem, while others may need to be replaced according to a Marvin Windows agent that looked at the damaged windows.  The windows are now out of warranty.

Dampness and condensation in the basement level: This has been a problem for many years, evident in the presence of mold and a high level of humidity.  A dehumidifier runs continually, and the carpet was replaced in the basement fellowship room in 2004, due to complaints from sensitive users of the space.  Even so, the complaints have never entirely ceased from those with sensitivities to mold and allergens.  The addition bid documents called for an air conditioning unit in the addition basement, which would have reduced the air humidity.  This was never installed, and no other long-term strategies were employed to lower basement humidity.

At this point the joint MH Committee and Trustees recommends at least the following work on the MH, in order of importance:

?    (Phase I) Demolition of contaminated materials and mold abatement
?    (Phase I) Reconstruction, sealing, patching or covering of exterior envelope (exterior walls, window, and roof) as to stop further moisture and thermal infiltration
?    (Phase I) New windows or window retrofits in the FIR apartment, the bridge and library
?    (Phase I) Reconstruction of interior floor framing and decking contaminated by mold
?    (Phase II) New heating and air conditioning system in the FIR apartment and ventilation of roof cavity
?    (Phase II) Reconstruction of any interior finishes necessary for use of Meeting and Fellowship rooms
?    (Phase II) Reconstruction of any interior finishes on any ancillary spaces in the MH including the library, bathrooms and non-critical entry areas
?    (Phase I) Permanent roof membrane and insulation
?    (Phase II) Updating of furnace
?    (Phase II) HVAC or other air quality upgrades to the basement
?    (Phase II) Earth re-grading, especially outside Fellowship room

Where possible the work should be staged as to limit disruption of TCFM operations and coordinate with weather, while also following procedures for maintaining construction indoor environmental quality.  The project is likely to require phasing in order to track with available capital budgets.

The joint MH Committee/ Trustees recommends investigation of the following add/alternates:
?    Install in-floor heating and cooling in basement floor
?    Roof redesign may be a part of phase I or phase II
?    Upgrade floor finishes in fellowship room or elsewhere in basement
?    Upgrade fixtures for water conservation, including toilets, sink faucets, and shower
?    Motion sensors on lights

Scope of Services

The scope of phase I work includes the following:
?    Building damage assessment
?    Develop a strategy and design of mold abatement, demolition work and reconstruction of exterior walls, some roof elements, and critical floor/ceiling elements.
?    Facilitate abatement, demolition and reconstruction.

Architectural services will cover the remaining phases of the project—that is, all phase II activities—beginning with predesign.  In conjunction with the joint committee of the MH Committee and the Trustees, the architect will develop a predesign concept to define the renovation – including program confirmation and conceptual diagrams – in order to communicate with TCFM at large.  In addition, the architect will work with the joint committee to schedule for completion of documents and start of and phasing of construction.  The approach for determining the final scope of services for the project will include TCFM participation with presentations and discussions.

Upon completion of the predesign work, the joint committee will direct the architect to proceed with Schematic Design, Design Development, Construction Documents, Bidding and Contract Administration through to commissioning and final completion.  In addition, cost estimates will be provided at completion of Design Development and at 50% of Construction Documents.  Interior design and services will be a component of basic architectural services.  The architect will be expected to provide access to and assistance with data entry for AIA architect and construction contractor contract documents.  The architect will be responsible for structural and systems assessments not done by TCFM.

The initial phase for the MH renovation involves the evaluation of existing conditions, suggestions and ideas for building renovations and systems upgrades to meet TCFM needs within project, budget and schedule requirements.  Further structural, mechanical and electrical investigations and evaluations of TCFM’s existing structure and systems may be required.

The architect will not be responsible for registering the project with the USGBC, but he or she will be responsible for designing the renovation and managing construction such that the project meets the requirements for a certified building per LEED Existing Buildings 2009.  The architect will need to communicate green design strategies and compliance to TCFM.

Presentations to the building committee by the architects are necessary for TCFM approval of Schematic Design.  The architects will also assist with any government review processes that are required throughout the course of the project.  The principal architect will participate in this open process, attending TCFM business meetings and joint committee meetings.

Fee Proposal

Fees should be presented for the preliminary scope as outlined under “General Description” and “Scope of Services.”
Additional Fees
Please provide a schedule

Form and Contents of Proposal

Proposal Form: Provide four (4) bound copies of your proposal plus one (1) copy clipped together to aid document reproduction.

Proposal Contents:
?    Scope of Services – Describe how services will be provided, including a detailed listing and description of tasks and deliverables.
?    Experience and Capacity – Describe background and experience of the firm demonstrating ability to provide required services.
?    References – List references from contracts similar in size and scope and other relevant projects.
?    Personnel – Identify involved professionals with resumes and specific application experience including consultants.
?    Cost – Indicate proposed cost of services, including budget determination and a schedule that details estimated additional services – with a not-to-exceed hourly fee – and reimbursable expenses.
?    RFP Submittal – Write the title of the RFP on the front of the envelope.  Send five (5) copies of the proposal to:
Elizabeth Barnard
1013 Thorn Street
Saint Paul, MN 55106

Proposals should be received by October 13, 2008

Walk-through

Architects visited the MH on Sept 2, 2008 at 7pm.  If you were unable to attend at this time, other arrangements may be made for you to see the MH.  Please contact Jeremy McAdams to RSVP.

Contacts

You may contact the following with questions about the MH or the walk-through: Jeremy McAdams, 612.205.8599, jeremym@alumni.upenn.edu
Mike Cregan, 651.295.2358, Michael.Cregan@Donaldson.com

Evaluation Criteria

?    Quality, thoroughness and clarity of proposal as pertinent to the project description
?    Responsibilities of key individuals on this project and availability
?    Qualifications and experience of key professionals, particularly related to church projects, community center facilities, mold abatement and renovations
?    Knowledge of sustainable architecture principles, and qualifications and experience of key professionals in sustainable architecture practices
?    Comfort and experience with working with a client that values participatory decision-making process
?    Racial, gender and cultural diversity in composition of key individuals
?    Cost of services proposed

Schedule

Architect Selection
?    TCFM walk-through                             Sept 2, 2008
?    Architects to receive Envelope Assessment (Inspec)            late September
?    Proposals due (postmarked)                        Oct 13, 2008
?    Committee review of Proposals                    Oct  20, 2008
?    Firms notified of selection decision                    Oct 24, 2008
?    Contract negotiations with selected firm                Oct 27, 2008
?    Project Start (Design Team mtgs and TCFM participation Phase)    Nov 3, 2008

McGregor Pearce, MPH

Environmental Health Consultant

P.O. Box 14481, St. Paul, MN 55114

Phone: (651) 646-4513

E-mail: pearc010@umn.edu

Results of sampling at: 1725 Grand Ave., St. Paul, MN

Samples collected on 4/24/08

McGregor Pearce, MPH

Environmental Health Consultant

P.O. Box 14481, St. Paul, MN 55114

Phone: (651) 646-4513

E-mail: pearc010@umn.edu

May 14, 2008

Greg Whitley-Mott

1725 Grand Ave.

St. Paul, MN 55105

greg@whitleymott.net

Dear Mr. Whitley-Mott

Enclosed is a table listing the results of mold testing performed at the Friends Meeting House, at 1725 Grand Ave, St. Paul, MN on April 24, 2008. These results show some slightly elevated mold levels in the common areas of the building, but the worst problem seems to be in the residential apartment on the second floor. You reported a recent flooding event on the second floor related to a problem with the sprinkler system in the second floor ceiling. This may be contributing to the elevated mold levels I measured. From what I was told, there was no systematic professional effort to determine abate wetting due to the flooding. A professional contractor would have used moisture detection equipment to find the wet areas, then used dehumidification to dry your property effectively. This is the best way to prevent mold damage in a flooded building. Turning on fans and crossing fingers often leads to problems down the road. Once things have dried out, there is no way to find out if damage occurred short of tearing open the walls and looking.

My results also suggest that there is a local problem on the north end of the second floor, where the mold levels, both by numbers and kinds indicate a moisture problem.

Your building is an older home which has had an addition tacked onto the north end. I am not a professional engineer, but I did notice some features that may be contributing to a moisture problem on the north end of the second floor. While the cladding appears to be stucco it is actually a synthetic stucco material that is notoriously leaky. During my inspection I showed you that the plywood at the bottom of the cantilevered north wall was soaking wet. You also told me that the mattresses in the bed room had mold growing under them. I suspect this is due to air leakage and deficient insulation, which create a cold surface that condenses moisture. I also notice that the wooden apartment window frames are showing a good deal of water damage. This may be due to condenstion, but there may be moisture problems in the wall as well.

I would recommend that you have an energy audit done as soon as possible to determine whether there is effective corrective action that can be taken to prevent further condensation problems. I would also suggest doing some invasive exploration to determine the condition of the wall cavities on the north end of the building.

In conclusion, it is difficult to determine the extent of mold damage due to the sprinkler failure without invasive exploration. The exposed plywood ceiling on the second floor has mold growing on it. This problem will continue as long as the roof deck is left exposed. This surface will be very cold in the winter, and conditioned air will condense on the plywood and continue to promote mold growth. I would suggest scrubbing this surface, then sealing the attic space to create an air tight cold attic. I also recommend investigating the condition in the walls of the north end 2^nd floor apartment. Once the extent of the moisture problem is determined and corrective action taken, I would suggest discarding all the carpeting and giving the living quarters a thorough cleaning.

If I can be of any further help, please feel free to call me.

Sincerely,

Mac Pearce

Attenders at MWB also heard that efforts to remedy this situation are well underway. A group of people, mostly from Trustees and Meetinghouse Committees have accomplished a remarkable amount, so far, mostly in assessing the size and scope of the problem. This all happened on an “Oh my gosh, what’s happening, let’s-get-going” basis, which has left some people concerned that they might be left out of the decision-making process as it goes forward.

Now, as we begin to let contracts and oversee the corrective work, we are looking to create an ad hoc committee that will oversee the process for the next six to twelve months. Hopefully this committee will be able to hear, and take into account, all community members with opinions. As Clerk of Meeting, I was asked to form this ad hoc committee.
I am starting the process of inviting community input by sharing what has developed this last week. This is my second draft of what I imagine the committee will look like and how it will function. I am sharing it here so
1) almost everyone has a chance to know my current thinking and can talk to me about other things they think should be included.
2) I plan to use this as I make my calls to recruit committee members, so that they know what I am asking them to get themselves into.
I may call you or I may not. I will be looking for people with particular skills and expert knowledge and also for people who can represent the interests of particular groups who will be affected, like First Day School. I hope to have perhaps a dozen committee members chosen by August 17. I hope many of them will be folks who are already up to speed with the rebuilding process. If you want to be considered and I have not talked to you by Friday, August 15, let me know.

At the Trustees/Meetinghouse Joint Committee meeting on August 4, we named this to-be-formed committee MOMSAH.
That’s:
Making
Our
Meetinghouse
Safe
And
Healthful

In my view MOMSAH, at its most expanded, is a community-wide shared awareness among people who know what is going on with the Meetinghouse rebuilding process.

Friends who accept my invitations to join the MOMSAH committee are leaping on an already-moving carriage, which is currently named the “Trustees/Meetinghouse Joint Committee.” As MOMSAH jells, some current members of the Trustees and Meetinghouse Committees will drop their focus on rebuilding and step off the carriage (but not necessarily their original committees) as the new MOMSAH picks up the reins of the rebuilding responsibility.

The work of the next several months has two major parts we can already see clearly.

1) Working from the outside, ripping off the parts of the exterior which have been letting water get into the building for years, and repairing the damage.
2) Working from the inside, in the Friends in Residence apartment (mostly), to remove moldy areas, install better ventilation and create a healthful space.

Another potentially-major project, for which we should have a diagnosis by mid-August, is the area above the meeting room ceiling. Are there unacceptable levels of mold between the ceiling and the roof? Large ones? If there are, that will also be a priority for MOMSAH’s attention.

WHAT SERVICE ON MOMSAH WILL INVOLVE:
IN TOUCH BY EMAIL/LISTSERVE
Things are moving very quickly, and there could be more expensive surprises as we begin to tear out the leaky and moldy parts of the building. Decisions will need to be made quickly. MOMSAH will have an email list (technically known as a list serve) which will inform MOMSAH members of new developments, and will be a way for members to share concerns with one another.

MEETINGS
The Trustees/Meetinghouse Joint Committee has been meeting approximately every three weeks on Monday evenings and new MOMSAH members should plan to come to the next meeting, September 8. (These meetings are open to ALL persons.)
Many of the issues will be faced and decisions made during the early fall , and the number of meetings will be dictated by the issues. During September, meeting at two-week intervals should not be surprising.
The pace should slow dramatically by late fall, and there may be little to do after February. MOMSAH members working at the most responsible levels should feel free fully released from the committee’s work by next August, but might be needed until then. It is my goal that by next summer all ongoing responsibilities will be moved back to standing committees like Meetinghouse and Trustees.

LEVELS OF INVOLVEMENT ON MOMSAH
Members will participate in MOMSAH in different ways with different levels of responsibility.

Technical Consultant Level:
This is mostly Mike Cregan and Jeremy McAdams. They have been consulting intensely with the Trustees/Meetinghouse Joint Committee for many weeks.
Perhaps some others with special technical knowledge like Lane McKiernen will be part of this group.
They are the ones dealing with the technical and professional people, for the most part.
They will make the technical decisions that don’t need to be brought to MOMSAH, or which cannot be brought to MOMSAH because of time pressures.

Decision Group:
(I imagine 3-5 people working at this level, available for quick consultations with the “Technical Consultants.”)
These people will have an overview of all the MOMSAH projects, as they develop.
And a responsibility to notice issues that are not getting enough attention.
They have a major say in the larger decisions.
They determine which decisions are so large that they need to go to MWB.
Specified Decision Group members will be the ones to authorize the Treasurer to write MOMSAH-related checks over a specified dollar amount.
Some major decisions will not be made at scheduled meetings, because of the pace of developments, but Decision Group members have the responsibility for alerting all MOMSAH members to events on the horizon, and receiving relevant inputs, so that decisions can be made as intelligently as possible.
The Decision Group would function something like an executive committee, for the larger MOMSAH.

(Co) Clerks
Could be a single person, or shared one or two ways.
They probably are Decision Group members, but perhaps not.
They clerk MOMSAH meetings.
They are attuned to TCFM processes and deadlines.
They will likely have primary responsibility for keeping the larger TCFM community informed, including seeing that meeting minutes are published.
They will also seek other ways to ensure a good flow of information to and from the Meeting community.

Representative Level:
Includes people representing:
First Day School Committee
Development Committee
“Experts” in allergies, chemical sensitivities,
Friends sensitive to other disability issues
Other subgroups of TCFM, like Fellowship
During times of peak activity, these people need to check their email on a daily basis, alert for issues that may affect the group they represent.
They need to be thinking about issues mentioned in the list serve, and issues that should be mentioned but have not been.
They will talk with others in the group they represent, to know the range of opinions on relevant topics.
They will attend many or most of the regular MOMSAH meetings
A “representative” might also be in the Decision Group.

Basic Level: Being part of the informed community
Being on the list serve.
Monitoring when their input is needed and attending the relevant meetings, or getting in touch with the appropriate people.

Process of Forming the Committee
(Revised 8/13)
MOMSAH will take over from the Joint Trustees-Meetinghouse Committee, which is already functioning strongly.
The transition needs to be seamless, so that balls are not dropped. This should be possible, since several Trustees-Meetinghouse Committee members will likely be serving on MOMSAH.
As I talk to people about serving on MOMSAH, I am trying to get them to say “yes, definitely,” to service, but to remain flexible about at exactly what level of participation they will contribute. That’s because I want to give MOMSAH committee members as much flexibility as possible to determine their own working arrangements. After people say “yes” to being on the committee, I sometimes explore with them whether they are willing to be “nominated” to a particular role, like Co-clerk. Once MOMSAH is functioning as a committee, MOMSAH will consider my nominations to particular roles. As a group MOMSAH decides who will be Co-clerks and who will be in the Decision Group. They will take my nominations into account, but may decide on different people, and perhaps even on different arrangements altogether.

Similarly, I don’t want to be too directive about the size of the committee. My particular vision is that everyone who wanted to could participate at the “Basic Level,” outlined above, and that, in fact, any meeting member who wanted to criticize how things are being done would be expected to be active at the Basic Level for at least two weeks before they were entitled to make a suggestion that would significantly change how things are done. That may be unrealistic and I want to leave up to MOMSAH itself many aspects of how the committee functions.

What is not in this MOMSAH draft
MOMSAH will not be focused on the old-house part of our Meetinghouse. It is not sick. While there is work that needs to be done on the house, it has lower priority than the sick-building work and is not part of MOMSAH’s job.
There is no talk here of financial matters or of fund-raising.
Obviously, some of the choices the meeting community will be called upon to make will depend on how much money we think we can raise. At our 7/25 MWB we glanced at this issue and took a big gulp.
This all still has to be addressed and worked out and, so far, the Development Committee is the committee most on the spot. We are not in a short-term cash crunch, AND we clearly are going to need more than we have in the bank. As we make decisions in the months ahead, there will be an interplay between how much money we think we can raise and how long-lasting and how “green” our construction aspirations become. How the information is gathered and how the decisions are made is still to be worked out. Surely this will be a big topic at the September 12 MWB. Surely ALL of the big decisions will be brought to future MWBs. Beyond that, we are just working things out.
Will we need a MOM$$AH committee too? Stay tuned.