.

Hatboro Considers $20K Facilities Study

The council plans to interview three architecture firms to determine which is best suited to conduct an analysis of borough-owned buildings.

The Hatboro Borough Council is looking to spend about $20,000 to get a better handle on the condition of borough-owned buildings.

During Monday night’s council meeting, the governing body agreed to conduct interviews of three architectural firms – TCA Architecture, Kimmel-Bogrette Architecture and KCBA Architects  - to determine which should carry out an all-encompassing facilities study.

Officials decided to interview those three firms based on the proposals submitted, which show costs ranging from $19,415 for TCA to $24,400 for KCBA. A fourth firm, which submitted a $50,000 proposal, has been eliminated from further consideration, the council agreed. 

Ultimately, the facilities study could shape Hatboro’s future in terms of potential renovations, expansions and possibly replacement of borough-owned buildings.

Council President John Zygmont said that at this point, planning for various borough facilities should be separate. The point, Zygmont said, is in “hiring somebody to come in and do a study and tell us what we have and what we might want to have.”

The possibility of a facilities study was first discussed at a capital budget meeting in January, during the ’s first few weeks in office. that he hoped the study would address if the police building should be renovated or rebuilt; how the public works departments' need for space could be addressed; and what should be done about the .

Borough Manager Steven Plaugher – who has – said Fred Zollers, the interim borough manager as of next week, will arrange interviews between the firms and the council. 

The study, if carried out, is not currently covered under a specific budget line item, Plaugher said.

“No actual money was budgeted,” Plaugher said in an e-mail. “Council would have to pay for it from its Capital ‘Savings’ Account.”

Under the previous Democrat-controlled council’s leadership last year, to determine if the existing nearly 60-year-old police station should be renovated and expanded, or razed and built anew. The architectural firm suggested the council build a new police station at a $2.2 million price tag.

Zygmont told Patch in January that his concern regarding Omnia’s evaluation is that representatives did not take into account what would happen to the public works space within the existing police building.

It may be a while until the borough council decides how to address its building needs. Plaugher said he could not determine how long it would take for the study to be conducted, or when the borough would receive the results.

Hatboro Hatter July 14, 2012 at 10:16 PM
Taking words out of context to suit your purpose and some how discredit me LMAO it might bother me if I cared what you thought, you are definitely a politician. My words from a post on the Patch article Hatboro Council Cancels Police Study are: My problem with this article is the fact that the sensationalism of the title that lead me to it from my Facebook. " What is borough council trying to hide" ? I mean come on, look at the votes on this article alone and you'll see that no body thinks this study is a big deal except Mrs.Reymer Hummmm?(Can you say axe to grinde?).I do think this article is a little bit of an attack on council, who from what I understand don't make a boatload of money for the time and effort they put in for this town and we need to be fair and not always accuse them of misdeeds and bad intentions. I think that they have the towns best interest at heart or they woundn't have ran for office to endure the scrutiny of the life of a public official and deserve better from the couch critics. This was posted at the end of March and is in a piece where the former Council president takes cheap shots at the current Council and police about stuff that happened on her watch. Thanks for the Grammar and spelling lesson LOL
Hatboro Hatter July 14, 2012 at 10:18 PM
PS: hyp·o·crite    [hip-uh-krit] 1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially a person whose actions belie stated beliefs. 2. a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, especially one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements. But I bet you already knew that.:-)
Tired of reading July 15, 2012 at 05:33 PM
that's confusing... AKA gerda... aka Marriane.. give it a break already !
that's confusing July 17, 2012 at 04:45 PM
LOL, not a chance. If they can post the agenda then why aren't they able to post the minutes once they've been voted on and approved by council? It's a simple question. Assumptions about the 'identities' of posters on here won't get you very far. Aren't you 'tired' of trying to intimidate people into not posting at all?
Liberty 1 July 17, 2012 at 07:19 PM
Those who know me know that I am a no holds barred free speech advocate, however it belittles all when people are called pieces of excrement and should be driven out of town. I have known John and his family for over 20 years and while I may not agree with his politics 100% I know he is a good guy, and is doing a good job. I do not know the women who were in charge earlier and do not agree with them politically, however, to bring up any personal financial problems is totally wrong. Anyone who has had these kind of problems understands and it is not intended to do anything but hurt and demean. A lot of good people go through financially tough times. As long as these problems come about from poor judgment and not illegal actions then it should remain a private matter.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »