Code violations could delay opening of Newton North

Less than a year before the new Newton North High School is due to open, city officials are asking the state for permission to allow illegal pipes they’ve already installed at the site. If their request is denied, the project could be delayed, threatening the scheduled opening of the school.

City Solicitor Dan Funk warned last year that any delay in the construction schedule of Newton North would be “catastrophic,” increasing costs and delaying the opening of the school past September 2010. Officials do not know how much the end cost or delay will be if they do not get this needed variance from the state.

“It’s a fair question,” said mayoral spokesman Jeremy Solomon, when asked if earlier characterizations of the cost of delays were accurate. “We don’t know what the resolution of the situation will be, and until we do we do not know what the impact on the schedule will be, if any.”

But altering the already installed plumbing system now will come with a price for residents, he said.

“Any changes to the system now will cost the taxpayers of Newton money,” Solomon said.

Contracts for the construction of the $197.5 million Newton North have come under increased scrutiny from unions lately, as they were often outbid for work on the site. Besides questioning the plumbing work at the site, Plumbers & Gasfitters Local 12 is arguing with the city’s legal department over the release of public documents. Separately, a masonry union sent a letter to Aldermen criticizing bricklaying at the site.

The high school is scheduled to open in September 2010.

In September 2008, the city agreed to settle a bid dispute with Commonwealth Plumbing, a member of Plumbers & Gasfitters Local 12, who lost out on the plumbing contract to the non-union Sagamore Plumbing.

The state Attorney General’s office ruled in favor of the union and said it would go to court to enforce that ruling.

In a letter to Mayor David Cohen dated Sept. 28, 2008, City Solicitor Dan Funk said he was confident the city would prevail in a trial, but that would lead to an injunction against the North project. An injunction would “derail the project, even temporarily,” Funk wrote.

“Even the slightest delay in the project schedule imposed by an injunction would likely result in a catastrophic, financial impact on the project, including delaying the opening of the school,” Funk wrote.

 Because of the time pressure, Funk asked the mayor to request $100,000 for a settlement with Commonwealth Plumbing, which the mayor requested and the Board of Aldermen subsequently approved. Local 12 has continued to ask for information about the project, according to an Oct. 19, 2009, letter from union Business Manager Kevin Cotter to the city solicitor’s office and the aldermen.

Cotter wrote that the city requested a variance from the State Board of Plumbers and Gasfitters after inspectors determined that the project’s stormwater piping was installed improperly and was made of material that violated the state building code. According to the Plumbing Board’s agenda for Oct. 7, Building Commissioner Nick Parnell requested a variance to allow the piping that has already been installed to be used for “the collection of rainwater conveyed to a 40,000-gallon water reuse tank as part of a Rain Harvesting System to provide flushing of toilets and urinals at the high school.”

Plumbing board spokesman Jason Lefferts said the board has not yet made a decision to grant the variance.

Solomon said the city installed the rainwater system and applied for the variance after the plumbing board raised the issue of its legality. He would not say how the plumbing board became involved in the matter, referring to an ongoing public information request made by the TAB.

The Oct. 19 letter from Cotter claims an inspector found the system in violation during an inspection in July.

Solomon said the rainwater collection was a “state-of-the-art” system and that it was environmentally beneficial, counting toward the building’s LEED certification. The pipe is not inferior, but does conform to requirements in the state code. Solomon said the system was more modern and not reflected in the current restrictions in the code.

He did not know what the cost would be to change the system.

“It depends on what we’re forced to do to comply with their demands,” he said.