Junior High Alternate Estimates Sought-This Day In Norwood History-June 25, 1971

Building Committee Votes to Solicit Five Alternate Cost Plans Amid Internal Friction Over Architect Fees

The permanent building construction committee (PBCC) last night voted to obtain estimates on five plans for the reconstruction of junior high school south. As outlined in a letter from School Supt. Dr. Philip O. Coakley, the five proposed solutions request the Boston architectural firm of Shepley, Bulfinch, Richardson and Abbott to estimate the cost of renovating and adding to the existing junior high school on its present site under the modified specifications outlined on May 5. In addition, the architects will be asked to estimate the original specifications and a revised plan for a new building on a new, unspecified site. The fifth category requests an estimate on duplicating the junior high north building on a new site. To fulfill this last track, the committee also voted to have junior high north’s architects, Korslund, LeNormand & Quann of Norwood, estimate the cost of duplicating that specific facility.

“They are the most familiar with it, they have the exact costs and all the plans and details,” said member Ernest Paciorkowski, who added that the duplication plan could mean substantial savings to the town “not only in dollars but in time.” Ernest Paciorkowski advised the committee to find out exactly how much is already owed to the current architects before committing deeply. “Then if he doesn’t turn out to be the architect and the project gets changed around, we’re not up a tree with a big bill we don’t expect,” he added. However, both Chairman James Kief and member Joseph P. Olshan voted against the motion to seek outside duplication designs, with Joseph P. Olshan stating, “It’s very improper to ask one architect to do it, then go behind his back.”

Reviewing events since the initial $6.7 million preliminary estimate—which was double the figure the town had originally anticipated—the committee turned back to the complex question of professional compensation. Chairman James Kief reported a telephone conversation with the Boston firm, noting that Shepley, Bulfinch, Richardson and Abbott had no formal contract and had received no money. They estimated the cost of renovating and adding to the 151,000-square-foot school at $10.50 per square foot, but this baseline calculation was later increased to $25 per square foot. James Kief maintained that the architects had gone ahead to make additional estimates without a guarantee that they would be involved in the final project. He indicated they would agree to make additional estimates, but noted a moral obligation, stating, “If we ask him to spend additional time and do additional work, we have to compensate him.”

Joseph P. Olshan interjected, “What’s the alternative? To wait another town meeting in fall?” Town Manager Walter Blasenak cautioned that the committee was asking the architect to execute labor for which no official municipal appropriation has been made. Finance Commission Member Justin Barton disagreed sharply with the notion of a moral commitment, countering, “We don’t owe him one red nickel. He knows full well the calculated risk and he’s not anticipating payment for what’s been done so far.” Justin Barton added that the committee was in an embarrassing position because it is well known they have not legally hired the architect, and termed the five plans requested by the school board as “out of our realm, not authorized by town meeting.” Meanwhile, Superintendent Dr. Philip O. Coakley was more hopeful that the additional revisions could reduce building costs by $1 million, though Justin Barton rejoined, “How we know? It’s pie in the sky.” In separate school news, School Supt. William A. Glynn stated last night that administrators will continue to watch the progress of full-year, 12-month school operations in other emergency communities.

Archival Note: This article has been dynamically reconstructed from the original public record print archives of the Patriot Ledger