Holyoke finance committee approves oversight, legal review for multi‑site roof renovations

The Holyoke City Finance Committee on April 2 accepted two letters from the Holyoke Board of Public Works requesting city-funded oversight and a limited legal review of ongoing roof renovation projects at the City Hall Annex, the Department of Public Works building and the Children’s Museum/Volleyball Hall of Fame.

The committee voted to forward the board’s request that the city hire a short‑term building quality inspector — described in the record as an owner’s project manager (OPM) or “building quality inspector” — and to authorize the city solicitor’s office to engage KP Law for a limited-scope review of contract compliance, change orders and project scope. The board said available American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds could pay for the work.

The measures respond to reported interior damage from roof leaks and evidence of mold as the roof contracts near completion. Mary Monahan, chairman of the Holyoke Board of Public Works, told the finance committee there was “no indication that there’s any allegations being made,” but that the board wanted independent review before final contract closeout to ensure work met contract terms and that final invoices were proper.

Monahan said the board recommended the building quality inspector report to the city engineer and requested that the solicitor’s office secure KP Law’s services to review project elements, including change orders, potential scope creep and pricing. “It is our understanding that funding for this position can come from the city’s ARPA funds,” the board’s letter stated, and Monahan confirmed staff believed ARPA appropriations could cover the inspector and legal review.

Counsel Michael Bissonnette said city procurement rules support hiring an outside consultant for specialized, time‑limited oversight, citing exemptions under the Chapter 30B procurement rubric. “Because of the specialized nature of what we’re seeking, ... it’s going to be a consultant, that would fall under the rubric of the 30B exemptions,” Bissonnette said, and added the board appeared satisfied with recent explanations of a $530,000 change order and related consultant fees.

Councilor Sullivan raised concerns about large change orders in complex public works contracts, saying that when state requirements are triggered “it’s almost like they were just handed a blank check,” and that outside review would help prevent contractors from exploiting gaps in oversight.

City staff present at the Board of Public Works’ April 1 meeting included City Engineer Matthew Socop and Assistant City Engineer Victoria Houle, along with building and procurement staff; Treasurer Rory Casey said he welcomed the additional oversight and looked forward to closing out the project. The finance committee moved that the existing order inviting the Board of Public Works to meet with the finance committee on the roof projects had been complied with; the motion carried.

Committee members said the position is intended to be short term and specific to the renovation projects, not a permanent full‑time hire. City staff were asked to update the committee on the posting and timeline; Monahan said staff hoped to have a response within about a week of the letters being delivered.

Background in the record notes the roofing work began under multiple city engineers and through several DPW leadership changes; committee members and board representatives said that turnover in project leadership contributed to the decision to add independent oversight before contract closeout.

Next steps recorded in the meeting: the city solicitor’s office will be asked to pursue a limited engagement with KP Law to review contract compliance and change orders, and the city engineer will be the primary point of contact for the building quality inspector once appointed. Funding for both the inspector and the legal review was described in the record as available under ARPA appropriations for the project.