More about the roof structural repairs

At the Selectmen’s working session, a citizen questioned whether the structural repairs to the roof were included in the estimate, and whether they were in the $4 million plan and the $6.8 million plans.  The Town Manager said that they were.

I had not previously looked at the extent of the reinforcement, so I took a fresh look at the roof structural plan.  From the way this structural requirement had been downplayed, I was under the impression that it was simply a matter of adding some extra fastenings.  So I was astonished to find that it calls for adding more than 11 tons of steel channel to reinforce all of the roof carrying beams.

In all, there are 72 20+ foot sections of large steel channel that must be cut, drilled, welded, and custom fit to the sides of the all 9 major roof trusses, with custom steel connections that must be fabricated to tie the reinforcement to the existing tension rods in the bottom chords.

So I went through the cost estimate spreadsheets looking for it.  The latest estimates include about $70,000 for structural steel.  The rejected $4 million plan includes a similar amount, but I can’t help question it because the third floor included in that plan was also supposed to have a structural steel frame.  I could not find it at all in the original estimate for the McGinley Kalsow plans, although it was part of the specification and probably was included in the contractor bids.

Safe to say that this is a major beef-up of the roof.  I’ll be impressed if these 300+ lb beams can be bought, fabricated, and installed for $900 each.

This entry was posted in Brewster Hall/Town Office. Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to More about the roof structural repairs

  1. Jim Noble says:

    I continue to have the impression that, with each turn of the BMH wheel, that we are not being told everything.

    I am not in favor of ANY renovation plan, because I favor moving the town government into a modern structure with parking adequate to support the necessary functions, and I believe that one dollar spent on BMH in its current state is a dollar taken away from what I DO support. I think that attempts to preserve BMH should be abandoned and the building demolished. Sure, that’s an expression of taste, but much if not all of the “Friends” position is an expression of THEIR tastes, and, of course, “Degustibus non disputandum”.

    However, if renovations are to be undertaken, I think they should be done properly, with accurate costs determined (as much as possible) in advance. I certainly agree that $70 000 for that roof work is not likely to come close to the final cost.

    Jim Noble

Comments are closed.