Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Roofing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission asks consultant for hybrid estimate for Bethl High School roof after two‑ply vs. EPDM debate
Summary
The commission directed consultant Matt to provide an itemized hybrid estimate (two‑ply mod‑bit vs single‑ply EPDM/TPO) for specific BHS roof sections, aiming to present material recommendations at the July 8 meeting and to support a potential referendum and state grant application.
Consultants and commissioners at the June 24 Bethl Public Site and Building Commission meeting pressed for a hybrid cost breakdown to decide whether to specify a two‑ply modified bituminous membrane or to use more economical single‑ply systems such as EPDM or TPO on parts of Bethl High School’s roof.
Matt, the architectural/roofing consultant, told the commission the two‑ply mod‑bit system effectively doubles membrane thickness (roughly 160 mils when doubled) compared with typical single‑ply membranes and offers an outer grit layer that improves puncture resistance and durability. He said two‑ply systems are harder to find installers for and cost about 10–15% more in his estimates, but they are a longer‑lived option.
Commissioner Tom and others pressed about maintenance access and rooftop traffic. Matt said walkway pads are included in the estimates to direct service traffic and reduce wear; he also advised that membranes cannot be flashed directly to different membrane types and that any hybrid installation must be separated at a roof divider or expansion joint.
On schedule and financing, Matt recommended completing construction drawings in late summer or early fall, securing a state project number and scheduling a PCR (pre‑bid conformance review) meeting in January, then issuing a four‑week bid and awarding a contract by mid‑March to enable substantial completion over a summer construction window. He and commissioners also discussed including a 6% annual escalation clause in later‑year builds and carrying a 5% contingency for unforeseen work.
Commission members noted that any construction cost over $2 million will require a public referendum; they debated whether to go to referendum with firm bid pricing or with the consultant’s estimates. The commission agreed the current cost estimates are suitable for referendum planning.
Action: the commission asked Matt to deliver a hybrid estimate that separates two‑ply and single‑ply square footage and costs for designated roof sections (the gym, two small roofs near the gym and two mechanical bumpouts). Staff said that revised numbers will be taken up at the July 8 meeting, at which the commission expects to vote on the preferred roof material (the vote will be on material selection only, not on final manufacturer or contractor). The matter will then move to the board of selectmen and, if required by the final cost, to a public referendum.
Next steps: Matt will submit an updated estimate for review before July 8; the commission will use that breakdown to finalize a recommendation for the board of selectmen and to support the town’s state grant application and PCR scheduling.
