Building committee briefed on $2.5 million police‑station roof replacement; votes postponed

A newly formed building committee was briefed on plans to remove and replace the police station roof and on an aggressive procurement timeline, but the group did not take any votes because several members present had not been sworn in.

Marlene McCollum, the town administrator, told the committee the project has $2.5 million available from the town meeting appropriation and that Gale Engineers conducted a peer review concluding the existing roof system needs full removal and replacement rather than repair. "You can't take any votes. You can't take any action" while the committee lacks a quorum of sworn members, McCollum added.

The committee was told the project remains at the conceptual-design stage and that several design choices remain, including whether to pursue a vented roofing system (required for some asphalt roofs) or an unvented system such as a standing‑seam metal roof. McCollum said the committee will choose system type after hiring an owner's project manager (OPM) and a designer, and that those consultants will present pros and cons and sequencing plans.

Members were warned that the roof replacement poses operational challenges. The building houses antennas and lightning arresters that may need relocation during construction, and speakers emphasized sequencing and phasing will be critical if the department is to continue operating from the building during work. The administrator said the Gale report documented multiple system deficiencies: inadequate ventilation, incorrect air/vapor/ice‑barrier materials, and incomplete installation of insulated structural panels (SIP panels).

Committee members were also told the town is in active litigation with the original designer and contractor related to the earlier project; McCollum said some matters may need to be discussed in executive session because of the litigation. She said members can request Gale Engineers to attend a future meeting to walk the committee through their investigative findings.

The administrator outlined a proposed procurement schedule for hiring an OPM and designer: a planned central register posting as soon as June 10, responses due around July 10, and interviews the week of July 20–24 if the committee supports an aggressive schedule. McCollum said she would distribute the Gale report and a draft RFQ for the OPM that evening and that the committee could vote on the RFQ at the next meeting once sworn members are available. She confirmed the peer reviewers (Gale Engineers) are eligible to submit proposals for design work and that the OPM and designer selections will be qualifications‑based, while the construction contract will be awarded to the lowest responsive bidder.

On budgeting and oversight, McCollum said the OPM will manage the budget, track change orders, and present monthly requisitions and budget updates for the committee to approve; the $2.5 million appropriation does not include a separate legal budget and some legal expenses are still being funded through the original building project's account.

Committee business was otherwise limited by procedure. Election of officers (agenda item two) was tabled because the committee lacked a quorum of sworn members; members agreed to meet virtually next Wednesday so newly sworn members can vote. Meetings will be recorded on Bourne TV and Zoom, and meeting minutes will be drafted by a recording secretary for committee review. The meeting adjourned without formal action.

What happens next: the administrator will circulate the Gale Engineers report and a draft RFQ for the OPM/designer, the committee plans a virtual meeting next Wednesday to certify sworn members and consider votes, and the procurement schedule will be finalized once the RFQ is reviewed.