|
Lexington Home Page
|
Help
|
About
|
Browse
Search
2006-11-29-SPTM2-AC-rpt
Breadcrumb Navigation:
TownOfLexington-Public
>
WEB PUBLISHED-PUBLIC DOCUMENTS
>
MINUTES-REPORTS-COMMITTEES ARCHIVE
>
Appropriation Committee-AC
>
Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2006
>
2006-11-29-SPTM2-AC-rpt
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/2/2022 3:26:14 PM
Creation date
3/13/2009 1:22:43 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Archives
Year
2006
Department
Town Clerk
Keywords or Subject
Minutes - AC - Appropriation Committee
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
APPROPRIATION COMMITTEE PRELIMINARY REPORT TO STM2 NOVEMBER 2006 <br />Introduction <br />Because of potentially conflicting timing issues, the Article to allow Town Meeting to appropriate funds <br />for a new Department of Public Works (DPW) facility is being addressed in a separate Special Town <br />Meeting. Our preliminary analysis and recommendation are given below. <br />Warrant Article Analysis and Recommendation <br />Article 2: Appropriate Funds Requested Funding Committee <br />For A DPW Source Recommendation <br /> <br />Facility Unknown GF (see discussion Approve (9-0) only <br /> regarding debt- reasonable funding to <br /> exclusion complete bid-ready <br /> referendum) construction documents <br />The DPW barn, where the bulk of the DPW vehicles and other equipment is stored every evening until <br />the next morning, is over 100 years old. Virtually none of the larger DPW facility is less than 40 years <br />old. A number of studies have consistently concluded that the facility is too small, is in terrible shape, is a <br />very inefficient work place, and is not in compliance with many aspects of current State and Federal <br />codes-not the least of which is accessibility. It is clear that the DPW facility is not adequate for the <br />Town's needs and there is little argument about whether it needs to be replaced. Any debate, at this time, <br />is about the scope of the project and other details.l <br />Unlike construction of a new school building where there is often more limited discussion of the project <br />scope and its impact on the operations of the school, the scope of the plans for a new DPW facility has <br />been questioned. Many of the questions are reasonable and should be answered carefully so that Town <br />officials and residents can be confident that any appropriation for a new facility has been thoroughly <br />reviewed in light of the very significant costs that will be incurred. <br />Just as the current facility has served the Town for decades, we can reasonably expect a new DPW facility <br />to last more than 50 years. The annual operating budget of the DPW is over $8M and that total includes <br />more than $3M in compensation for Town employees. In ballpark terms, over the life of a new facility the <br />Town will spend more than $150M for DPW employee compensation (in 2006 dollars). In the same time <br />period, $25M to $SOM will be spent on DPW equipment (at $SOOK to $1 M a year). Currently, the annual <br />cost of heat and electricity for the DPW facility is roughly $SOK. The energy costs in a new facility could <br />rise significantly (in current year rather than in inflated dollars) because the planned new facility will be <br />much larger than the current one and it will likely be better ventilated and better lit. On the other hand, it <br />is being designed to minimize energy use (better insulation, etc.). If we speculate that the annual energy <br />costs remain near the current level, the total expenditure on energy over 50 years will be on the order of <br />$SM and could be much higher if energy costs rise, as is likely. The cost of maintenance of the facility <br />itself will be roughly $SOOK per year (using 2% of replacement value as a rule of thumb), or $25M over <br />50 years. <br />Clearly, any effects of the new facility on employee productivity (as well as on that of DPW contractors), <br />on costs of facility and equipment maintenance and replacement, and on energy usage, ought to be taken <br />into account together with the cost of building a new facility. Therefore, this Committee is concerned with <br />life-cycle costs. <br />1 Background information on the DPW facility project may be found online at <br /><httpa/www.lexingtontmma.orglDocuments06/STMDPWPresentation1106.pd~. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.