{"id":11700,"date":"2012-09-26T13:26:36","date_gmt":"2012-09-26T17:26:36","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.unionvilletimes.com\/?p=11700"},"modified":"2012-09-26T14:27:34","modified_gmt":"2012-09-26T18:27:34","slug":"spending-on-barnard-house-questioned-again","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.unionvilletimes.com\/?p=11700","title":{"rendered":"Spending on Barnard House questioned again"},"content":{"rendered":"

Supervisor questions liability of ‘value engineering’ versus a rebid of the renovation project<\/span><\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

By Kelli Siehl<\/strong>, Staff Writer, The Times<\/em><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

Pocopson supervisors appear to be split on whether to rebid the renovation project for the Barnard House, or attempt to ‘Value Engineer’ the existing bids. There is some disagreement about the potential for legal issues with the later course of action.<\/p><\/div>\n

POCOPSON \u2014 Township officials went another round with residents at Monday\u2019s Board of Supervisor\u2019s meeting over proposed plans to renovate the historic Barnard House into usable space for municipal government.<\/p>\n

Earlier this month, bids received from four separate packages were \u201ctoo high\u201d according to Supervisors\u2019 Chair, Steve Conary, coming in at $1.02 million – plus additional expenses for construction management and contingency costs.<\/p>\n

According to officials, the township is faced with several options including: 1) value engineering \u2013 \u00a0meeting with the current low bidders and taking a closer look at the project to see if other materials or methods can be used to save money, yet still offer similar quality and benefits, \u00a02) rejecting the bids and sending the project back to the architect to be reworked and the new package then be put out for bid or 3) tabling the project and revisiting at another time while continuing to budget each year to cover expenditures for the building\u2019s upkeep.<\/p>\n

At the Sept. 5 Board of Supervisors meeting, board members agreed to table the matter and pursue ‘value engineering’ to legally decrease the cost of the project as well as save time and the added expense of reworking the package for rebid.<\/p>\n

During Monday\u2019s meeting, Supervisor Ricki Stumpo weighed in, reading a written statement outlining recommendations from the Township\u2019s architect on the project, Dennis Melton, the Township Solicitor, Ross Unruh and the Pennsylvania State Association of Township Supervisors (PSATS) to reject all bids and rebid the package.<\/p>\n

Stumpo, unable to be at the Oct. 8 Supervisors\u2019 meeting when a proposed decision will be made, said she favors following PSATS advice and feels value engineering opens the township to lawsuits. She added she would also like to see environmental considerations included, such as geothermal or solar energy, to satisfy the 2008 resolution in which officials agreed to \u201clead the community in clean energy.\u201d<\/p>\n

Conary stressed that although value engineering is taking place with the low bidders \u2013 \u201cthey understand that there\u2019s no guarantee they will get the contract out of this\u2026there\u2019s no obligation on anybody\u2019s part.\u201d \u00a0In addition, Conary added that he also believes the project will be rebid.<\/p>\n

Township resident Scott Kirkland said he\u2019s concerned about the township engineer\u2019s recommendation to budget $80,000 a year for the Department of Environmental Protection\u2019s plan to renew the township\u2019s MS4 Permit, questioning why officials chose to budget only $16,000 on that project while spending $50,000 a year on the upkeep of the Barnard property. \u00a0Kirkland asked officials if the current township building is meeting the needs of the community – \u201cDon\u2019t you have a fiduciary responsibility to spend the tax payers\u2019 money on things that are required of the government rather than wishes and needs of the township?\u201d<\/p>\n

Conary countered saying \u201cnot all agree that this (current) building meets our needs,\u201d citing less than adequate working conditions for township employees. \u00a0Conary explained that officials are objecting to the Sediment Plan because \u201cthere\u2019s no way to tell if that $80,000 would give any benefit at all\u201d since there is no recent data to support the formula.\u00a0 Conary stressed that clean water is important to the township and officials will look at any and all options for improvement.<\/p>\n

Kirkland further inquired, \u201cIf a million dollars is too much to spend on renovations of the Barnard House, what price would be acceptable?\u201d \u00a0According to Conary, \u201cwe are looking at $750,000-$800,000 total cost\u2026we could borrow that today at 2% and have a monthly payment totaling around $46,000 a year,\u201d roughly the same amount currently budgeted to maintain the historic structure.<\/p>\n

Several residents asked about the sale of the current township building and if those proceeds would be used toward the restoration of the Barnard House?\u00a0 Conary explained the money would go into the general fund where it could be used to pay down the loan; it could also be applied to the entire amount to prepay the loan, or, depending on the needs of the community, it could be earmarked for something else \u2013\u201ca decision the Board of Supervisors has to make at the time.\u201d<\/p>\n

Conary concluded the discussion by reminding everyone that the township \u201cstill owns the Barnard House at the end of the day,\u201d but assured residents, \u201cwe will not spend a million dollars\u201d for its restoration.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Supervisor questions liability of ‘value engineering’ versus a rebid of the renovation project By Kelli Siehl, Staff Writer, The Times POCOPSON \u2014 Township officials went another round with residents at Monday\u2019s Board of Supervisor\u2019s meeting over proposed plans to renovate the historic Barnard House into usable space for municipal government. Earlier this month, bids received […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":11702,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,7],"tags":[301,10,57],"class_list":["post-11700","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-news","category-featured","tag-barnard-house","tag-pocopson","tag-township-supervisors"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.unionvilletimes.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11700","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.unionvilletimes.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.unionvilletimes.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.unionvilletimes.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.unionvilletimes.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=11700"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.unionvilletimes.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11700\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.unionvilletimes.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/11702"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.unionvilletimes.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=11700"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.unionvilletimes.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=11700"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.unionvilletimes.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=11700"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}