The Examiner

New Mount Kisco Firehouse Estimates Expected By April 15

We are part of The Trust Project

By Sean Browne

The Green Street firehouse, where a miscalculation by the architecture and engineering firm gave Mount Kisco officials an estimate that was off by about $1.6 million.

New estimates for the expansion and renovation of Mount Kisco’s three firehouses are expected to be shared on Apr. 15 after significant errors by the architectural and engineering firm retained for the project were recently discovered.

Mayor Gina Picinich, who provided an update on the situation at last week’s Village Board meeting, said officials are unable to make decisions on how to proceed until firm costs for the project are known. The work was supposed to be financed by the $10.25 million referendum that was approved by voters in November 2017.

Last month, it was brought to officials’ attention that the estimate from H2M architects + engineers of Melville, N.Y. was off by about $1.6 million for the Green Street firehouse renovation as a result of a square footage miscalculation.

“Once we know what the real costs are going to be, then we can sit down and work with our fire commissioners and the chiefs to determine what the next best steps are,” Picinich said. “But until we have that complete information, we’re not able to move forward with the plan.”

In addition to the Green Street facility, which houses the Mount Kisco Rescue Fire Police and the Union Hook & Ladder Co., there were mistakes made at the Lexington Avenue firehouse, home of the Independent Fire Co., and the East Main Street facility, which is the base for the Mutual Engine & Hose Co. Information regarding how much the mistakes at the Lexington Avenue and East Main Street firehouses could cost the village have not been shared.

Picinich said she and Trustee Peter Grunthal met with the CEO of H2M about two weeks ago. She described the conversation as “very serious.”

“This was substantially higher then what was planned and anticipated for,” Picinich said.

The board had unanimously voted on Mar. 4 to formally reject H2M’s bid. It also made the decision for H2M to continue with the project.

“This (was) a technical rejection because it needs to be reworked, there is no comment on the contractor whatsoever,” Grunthal said. “In fact, we are hoping that the contractor comes back with another bid under the new circumstances we find ourselves in. But technically we need to reject it to enable the contractor to come back with a new bid.”

We'd love for you to support our work by joining as a free, partial access subscriber, or by registering as a full access member. Members get full access to all of our content, and receive a variety of bonus perks like free show tickets. Learn more here.