Crew quarters receives certificate of occupancy; commission debates contractor change orders and requests electrical confirmation

5969305 · October 15, 2025

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The airport’s crew quarters has a certificate of occupancy, but commissioners deferred settlement of four contractor change orders until written confirmation of the building’s electrical service and further legal/OPM review is provided.

The Nantucket Memorial Airport Commission heard that the new crew quarters building received its official certificate of occupancy, but commissioners deferred a final settlement on four outstanding change orders pending further documentation and confirmation of the site’s electrical service.

Airport staff told commissioners the project has four change orders with the following amounts as recorded in meeting documents: basement steel $31,007.37; retaining wall height $11,817; a 600‑amp disconnect $21,087; and a split‑rail fence (transcript shows inconsistent figures for this item; staff later discussed this item as being roughly in the mid‑$30,000 range). Staff recommended the airport pay the two code‑required items — the retaining wall modification and the 600‑amp disconnect — (combined total approximately $33,000) and accept the contractor’s offer to waive the other two items. Legal counsel reviewed the proposal and staff recommended deferring final settlement to the next meeting after additional review.

Why it matters: Approving or rejecting these change orders affects the final contract closeout, the airport’s capital accounting for the project and whether the owner (the airport) or the contractor bears specific costs tied to code compliance and design interpretation.

Commission requests and follow‑up: Commissioners asked the airport’s owner’s project manager and documentation team to provide written confirmation that the electrical service and incoming conductors are appropriate for the intended basement build‑out (discussion focused on whether service conductors from the street are rated to support a later basement expansion and why a 600‑amp disconnect was required). Commissioners also asked staff to confirm whether any code changes occurred after the design that would shift responsibility to the architect or OPM.

Outcome: The commission agreed by unanimous consent to hold the SW Cole pending‑contract discussion and to revisit the change‑order settlement at the next meeting once the OPM and legal counsel provide written clarifications. No final monetary settlement was approved at this meeting.