School Committee Approves $2.3 Million Bid On Meadowbrook

School Committee members approved a $2.3 million bid on fixing long-standing moisture problems at Meadowbrook Farms School during their meeting Tuesday night in a 5-1 vote. Committeeman Paul Martin voted against the bid; Mary Ellen Winter was absent.

The bid, by Tower Construction, came in $900,000 below what had been estimated for the work, which included removing all flooring — the top tiles, the stop-gap subflooring applied 8 years ago, and the asbestos floor tiles that were originally installed — as well as fixing the building’s negative air flow.

The proposed fix came after a year of testing at the building and several months of discussions by the School Building Committee, the School Committee and, eventually, the Town Council on whether or not Meadowbrook was worth it. Studies indicated, however, that the town will continue to need all four elementary schools into the foreseeable future so the hope that with sixth graders moving to Cole one of the elementary schools could be shuttered was proved false.

All three panels voted to increase the original allocation for Meadowbrook under the voter-approved $52 million bond question in 2008, but with some ambivalence. At issue was a school long known for its moisture problems, one that had undergone more than one previous “fix.”

According to Sean Sullivan of project manager Strategic Building Solutions (SBS), the new work will begin right after school lets out in June. It will continue through the summer, the following school year, and through summer 2013.

That bothered Meadowbrook parent David Gecawich, who urged the School Committee to consider using the bid savings to arrange to have the work done without students present, citing potential danger from the asbestos removal.

Paul Martin questioned the entire project, citing earlier failed fixes and Gecawich’s questions.

“We have all these questions.… If there are so many questions on it, I can’t see approving something that costs $2 million when people have so many concerns.”

Chairwoman Deidre Gifford reminded Martin that the panel had already voted to approve the project and the vote before them was on a bid, not the project itself.

Regarding the asbestos removal, Sullivan said, “It’s all done under state regulations.”

“Has the safety been properly addressed for this project, with the kids in the school?" Committeeman Jack Sommer asked. “Yes,” said Sullivan.

“There’s not a lot of wiggle room in the state regulatory process,” said Gifford. “You have to do certain things and it’s very costly.”

She continued, “These are understandable and legitimate concerns. Every question that the families at Meadowbrook have about this process needs to be answered. But it needs to be answered with the right people in the room and we need to not be speculating.”

She said she and Supt. Victor Mercurio were meeting with Jon Winikur of SBS and Jay Gowell of the School Building Committee on Thursday and they would arrange a meeting with the contractor, someone from the state health department as well as SBS to talk to Meadowbrook parents about the process.

“I don’t think anyone really likes the idea,” said parent Barbara Brusini of the plan to carry out the construction and abatement during the school year. Still, she said, “the work needs to be done.”