2007-04-23-ATM-AC-rpt3 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

APPROPRIATION COMMITTEE 3rd REPORT, April 23, 2007, TO 2007 ATM Board of Selectmen and the public early last fall. At that time, the cost of the overall project was estimated to be $30.SM. The Selectmen called one of the two Special Town Meetings (STMs) for late November 2006 (it was STM2) with the intent of gaining approval of an appropriation sufficient to cover the overall project cost. However, the members of this Committee and others suggested that the project was not ready to receive final approval from Town Meeting. It was also pointed out that it would be possible to put off the large appropriation for the actual construction until this Annual Town Meeting without delaying the start of construction (a delay would lead to a cost increase from inflation). Thus, the decision-which this Committee unanimously endorsed-was made to request an appropriation of $1.6M so that the design process could continue on an uninterrupted basis while a new "review and confirm" process would be undertaken. That process was to investigate whether the proposed facility was being designed to the essential needs of the DPW for the foreseeable future and whether the design was as economical and environmentally friendly as practical. The request was unanimously approved at the December 6, 2006, session of the STM2. Following that approval, a team made up of representatives from a number of boards and committees worked together with the PBC and the design team on a review of all aspects of the proposed plan, from requirements through implementation. Members of this Committee were deeply involved in that process. Prominent among the wide range of questions and suggestions that were considered during the review process were: the reasons justifying an indoor vehicle storage and operations area-and whether to heat it; the possibility of using pre-engineered structures; and the relocation of the DPW administrative offices, the Engineering Department, and certain other offices or functions that presently are located elsewhere to 201 Bedford Street. In recognition of the fact that a new facility will serve Lexington for decades and will affect the efficiency of the DPW in its daily operations, a primary goal of the review team was to recommend changes to the design that would minimize the life-cycle costs of the facility and DPW operations without jeopardizing performance of the DPW functions. The review team recommended a number of changes to the design including: retaining the indoor vehicle storage, but at a reduced size; reducing the size of the vehicle maintenance bays; reducing the size of the locker rooms; eliminating any requirement to provide additional space for voting by Precinct 8 residents; reconfiguring the exterior cold storage to eliminate the need for retaining walls; eliminating space for the Town's network closet; and reducing the interior storage area. The architectural/engineering team presented new designs that responded to these recommendations and reduced the floor area of the facility without otherwise affecting its functionality. The question whether a new DPW facility should continue the current practice of providing a minimally heated indoor storage and operations area for the majority of the department's vehicles was considered in detail. It was found that such an indoor operations area: • provides a safer work area during inclement weather and will reduce the Town's exposure to costly on-the job injuries, • will result in shorter times for the DPW to respond to water-main breaks, sudden snow/ice storms, and other emergency situations, • will allow DPW employees to devote more of their time to direct service to residents and businesses as opposed to getting vehicles and equipment ready to perform tasks, • will improve the Town's ability to attract the most qualified people for DPW administrative and operational positions, and • will reduce noise and stray-light impacts on surrounding residential areas, a concern raised by neighbors at the public hearings. The consulting engineers performed acost/benefit analysis which concluded that indoor vehicle storage is highly cost-effective because of the above effects as well as the possibility that it may increase the life of vehicles and equipment. Indeed, they estimated that a 40,000 square foot indoor, minimally heated, 2