Panel backs $61,650 design contract for firehouse

Other Committee · Meeting of October 1, 2026

Newington's Permanent Municipal Building Commission voted unanimously to recommend a $61,650 design contract for the long-deteriorating Chapman Street firehouse. Commission members backed hiring TLB Architecture, represented at the meeting by Chris Strange, to produce full construction documents, bidding support and construction administration after reviewing a more than 400-page conditions assessment covering structural, mechanical, electrical and hazardous-materials findings, including a wood-supported steel beam needing correction. Only $292,600 of an estimated $475,000 construction budget is currently available, and Chairman Woods said the commission would prioritize exterior work, arguing, "we need to take care of the outside of the building.

We need a new roof." Staff member Joe Salamone backed moving forward with full documents rather than splitting the scope. Near the end of the meeting, member Joe Harpy and Woods disagreed over whether the project has one scope or two, with Woods saying, "there's always been one scope to renovate the building."

In the full story:

• Who Was There
• Organizations And Documents Referenced
• The complete report — 2,373 words

Source: the Other Committee meeting of October 1, 2026, reported from the official video recording and transcript.

Checked against the record: before publication this article was automatically compared with the meeting transcript.

The Full Article

Roll call and minutes

The Permanent Municipal Building Commission convened at 5:17 p.m. with Chairman Woods presiding. A roll call confirmed a quorum: permanent members Raul Abraham, Joe Harpy and Stan Sobieski, plus Chapman Street Facility members Don Brown and Chris Ferry. No members of the public signed up for public participation. The commission approved the minutes of its July 16 meeting on a motion by Sobieski, seconded by Brown, with no discussion.

Chapman Street conditions assessment

Background and stakes: The Chapman Street building is a former firehouse now used by the fire department for storage. The commission previously hired TLB Architecture to produce a comprehensive conditions assessment of the structure, which the firm finalized and presented for the first time in full at this meeting.

The question before the body: Whether the commission had reviewed the assessment sufficiently to move forward with hiring TLB for the next phase, producing construction documents.

Substantive content: Chris Strange of TLB Architecture, filling in for a firm colleague traveling internationally, presented the more than 400-page report, which the commission's environmental consultant compiled alongside TLB's architectural, structural, mechanical, plumbing and site findings. Architecturally, the report catalogued facade, roof and interior slab deficiencies, including mortar degradation and failed sealants. Structurally, the most significant finding was a steel beam, running roughly from one corner of the original building to the rear, that is currently supported by wood rather than steel posts; Strange called it a defect that should be corrected but said it had not been flagged as an imminent failure risk. The report also identified a vertical masonry joint indicating the building was constructed in at least two phases, with one bay predating the boiler-room addition.

On mechanical and plumbing systems, Strange said the building has two different heating systems, including an abandoned hydronic heater, and recommended installing a second gas-fired unit in the currently unheated bay. Old piping of unknown routing would need to be scoped, capped or removed. The electrical review found a 100-amp service panel that may be adequate, along with aging wiring that would be fully replaced regardless. On hazardous materials, the report found asbestos in some floor mastic and tile, PCBs in black caulking, and lead paint in some door and window frames at levels the consultant flagged for remediation; general wall paint tested below thresholds requiring abatement.

Site and civil findings included driveway cracking, a mapped stormwater and drainage pattern, and sewer cleanouts discovered during the survey. Commission members asked about possible easements; Strange said none had been identified in preliminary documentation review by the project's civil engineer, MCA, and noted that the town's own engineer, Chris Zivito, had surveyed the property roughly a year earlier and likely would have flagged any easement.

The deliberation: Member Joe Harpy pressed Strange on a floor-level discrepancy between the building's two bays and on whether repairs could be done in place rather than full replacement. Strange said most remediation, including asbestos removal from floor tile, would occur on site, with some sashes potentially removed for off-site lead treatment. Harpy also raised whether the boiler-room extension could be preserved for storage or a generator; Strange and Chairman Woods concluded it likely was not worth the structural investment required.

Procedural steps and outcome: No formal vote was taken specifically on the conditions assessment; the commission treated the presentation as informational ahead of the fee discussion that followed.

Implications and what is next: The assessment becomes the technical basis for the construction documents the commission voted later in the meeting to recommend funding.

Historic preservation and restoration scope

Background and stakes: Commission members have previously discussed whether repairs must replicate original materials given the building's age and community significance as a former firehouse.

The question before the body: How strictly the project must adhere to historic preservation standards for elements such as windows, doors and brick.

Substantive content: Strange said the building's overhead doors and front door are not original, giving the project latitude to install modern, better-sealing replacements without matching historic appearance. Windows, by contrast, may be original and the plan calls for restoring them in kind given their relatively sound condition. On masonry, Strange said most repair work will involve repointing roughly three-quarters of the mortar depth across facades, with only a limited number of damaged bricks requiring replacement with matching new brick.

The deliberation: Member Joe Harpy asked whether replacement bricks would be hard to match. Strange and Woods said most brick is salvageable through repointing rather than replacement, which Woods characterized as less costly than widespread brick replacement. Separately, member Sobieski asked whether the commission had previously decided to pursue a single-tenant layout rather than a multi-tenant configuration; Strange said that decision had not yet been finalized and would need to come from the town manager's office before being incorporated into construction documents.

Implications and what is next: The town manager's staff still must select among four proposed interior layout options before TLB finalizes construction documents for that portion of the work.

Adaptive reuse question

A brief exchange addressed whether the building might eventually serve a use other than fire department storage. Strange said the current design assumes continued unconditioned storage use by the fire department; a different use, such as office space, would require conditioned space, additional restrooms and a higher code standard, substantially increasing cost. Chairman Woods said that decision rests with the town manager's staff, not the commission or the architect, and that the commission's task is to design to whatever use is specified. No action was taken on this question.

Cost estimate and funding gap

Background and stakes: The commission's prior construction cost estimate for Chapman Street has stood at $475,000, but the commission has only partial funding available, forcing a decision about sequencing work.

The question before the body: Whether to proceed with full construction documents for the entire project or split the design scope between exterior and interior work given the funding shortfall.

Substantive content: Strange confirmed the $475,000 figure remains the firm's construction-only estimate, excluding design and other soft costs, and said it equates to roughly $236 per square foot for the 2,007-square-foot building, which he called reasonable given the scope of new electrical, mechanical, plumbing and fire-protection work required. Commission clerk Lauren reported the available Chapman Street balance at $292,600, down from an earlier figure of $335,000 after accounting for costs already committed to work returning to the council. Chairman Woods said that balance must also cover TLB's design fee, leaving roughly $200,000 for construction once design costs are deducted, well short of the full $475,000 estimate.

The deliberation: Chairman Woods argued for prioritizing exterior, "watertight" repairs, including roof replacement and repointing, within the available funds, deferring interior finish work and asbestos abatement, which is not required until interior work begins. Member Harpy, raising a dissenting view near the end of the meeting, argued the commission had always intended broader restoration beyond simple weatherproofing and suggested reviewing prior minutes to clarify scope.

"I don't know where you're coming up with the two different scopes. There's always been one scope to renovate the building. We only have the funds to do a piece of it right now." [01:13:23] — Chairman Woods

Harpy maintained that earlier commission discussions distinguished between a minimal preservation scope and a more expansive renovation option, telling Woods, "we're going to agree to disagree" when the exchange did not resolve. Chairman Woods said the council would be told the full project costs $475,000 but that the commission currently has $292,600 to work with, with additional funds potentially available through the town's Capital Improvement Program request process, possibly as early as January when the council can reallocate funds.

Implications and what is next: The funding gap of roughly $182,000 between the estimate and the available balance was not resolved at this meeting; commission members said they expect to request additional money through the CIP process, with Chairman Woods saying he plans to raise the matter directly with councilors.

TLB design fee and procurement approach

Background and stakes: With the conditions assessment complete, the commission needed to decide whether to recommend hiring TLB for the next phase, construction documents, and at what fee.

The question before the body: Whether to recommend a $61,650 contract with TLB Architecture, as proposed, or to add allowances for additional survey or special-inspection work.

Substantive content: TLB's proposal broke out a base architectural, mechanical and structural fee of about $62,000, plus allowances for civil engineering survey work, a boundary survey, construction-phase support, and a construction cost estimator, totaling roughly $25,000 to $26,000 in optional allowances. Staff member Joe Salamone, participating by phone, said he was comfortable recommending the base $61,650 figure, arguing the town's own civil engineer, Chris Zivito, could likely handle drainage-related survey work in-house rather than paying TLB's consultant allowance. Salamone recommended the commission instead consider a small, unspecified allowance of roughly $5,000 to $6,000 to cover unknowns such as locating the building's sanitary piping, which remains undocumented, and flagged that special inspections for steel and concrete work were excluded from TLB's proposal and should be budgeted separately.

The deliberation: Member Sobieski, also referred to in the meeting as "Stanley," asked whether the fee should be split between exterior and interior design work to match the phased funding approach. Strange and Woods said splitting the scope would likely cost more overall because TLB would have to revisit and re-coordinate design work across two efforts rather than one. Member Harpy raised a related concern that a forthcoming state building code update could force redesign of any interior work completed now; Strange said he did not expect significant code changes for an unconditioned-storage use, and said the bulk of project cost is concentrated in exterior work regardless of that risk.

Salamone also described how construction administration would work once documents are complete: rather than engaging a single general contractor for the whole project, which he said would be too administratively burdensome for his department, the town could use job-order bidding consortiums such as the Gordian Group's EZIQC program to solicit prices for discrete trade packages, such as a roof replacement, without a formal competitive bid for each one.

"We would still rely on TLB for some construction administrative services per their contract. ... I think that saves us some money on OH&P with the general contractor." [00:55:36] — Joe Salamone

Procedural steps and outcome: Member Don Brown asked how long the design phase would take; Chairman Woods estimated three to six months before the project could go out to bid. Member Sobieski then moved that the commission recommend the Town Council approve a $61,650 contract with TLB Architecture for 100 percent construction documents, bidding support and construction administration. Brown seconded. The motion passed unanimously on a voice vote, with no recorded opposition.

Implications and what is next: The recommendation now goes to the Newington Town Council for formal contract approval. Chairman Woods said he intends to tell councilors the project's full construction cost is $475,000 against $292,600 currently available, and that the commission will likely seek roughly $250,000 more to complete the project as scoped.

Other business and adjournment

No further business was raised under the "other business" item, and no members of the public spoke; a participant identified only as Gail appeared to have an unresolved muting issue and did not end up speaking. Near the close of the meeting, member Harpy asked whether the commission had settled on one project scope or two, prompting the scope disagreement with Chairman Woods described above; the matter was not resolved, with Woods stating "we're going to agree to disagree." Sobieski then moved to adjourn, and the motion carried unanimously on a voice vote.

WHO WAS THERE

Chairman Woods — presided over the meeting; addressed repeatedly in discussion as "Steve" (role inferred from context; see review note). Raul Abraham — permanent commission member, present for roll call, no recorded remarks. Joe Harpy — permanent commission member; raised structural, historic-preservation and project-scope questions. Stan Sobieski — permanent commission member, also referred to as "Stanley"; moved all three motions of the meeting. Don Brown — Chapman Street Facility committee member; seconded all motions and asked about the design timeline. Chris Ferry — Chapman Street Facility committee member; present for roll call, no recorded remarks. Lauren — staff member who conducted the roll call and reported available project funds; no title or surname given in the transcript. Joe Salamone — staff member who joined by phone to advise on cost estimates, procurement and construction administration; no title given in the transcript. Mike Fortuna — mentioned once as someone who would help determine the design schedule; role not established in the transcript. Gail — participant with an apparent audio/mute issue; did not audibly speak; role unclear. Chris Strange — representative of TLB Architecture, presenting the conditions assessment and fee proposal in place of a firm colleague who was traveling. Chris Zivito — Newington's town engineer, referenced regarding a prior property survey and potential sewer/drainage documentation; did not attend.

ORGANIZATIONS AND DOCUMENTS REFERENCED

TLB Architecture — the design firm that produced the Chapman Street conditions assessment and whose $61,650 fee proposal for construction documents the commission voted to recommend. MCA — the project's civil engineering consultant, cited regarding preliminary easement and documentation review. MDC (Metropolitan District Commission) — referenced regarding possible historical records of sanitary and water service lines serving the building. Gordian Group / EZIQC program — a job-order contracting bidding consortium discussed as a way to hire trade contractors for individual repair packages, such as roofing, without a traditional competitive bid. Newington Town Council — the body that must formally approve the $61,650 TLB contract based on the commission's recommendation, and that commission members said they will ask for additional Capital Improvement Program funding. Chapman Street conditions assessment report — the more than 400-page document, compiled by TLB Architecture and an environmental consultant, covering architectural, structural, mechanical, plumbing, site and hazardous-materials findings for the building; the basis for the meeting's discussion. July 16, 2026 commission minutes — approved without discussion at the start of the meeting. $475,000 conceptual construction estimate — TLB's construction-only cost figure, cited throughout the fee and scope discussion.