2018-03-26-CEC-ATM-rpt (Updates & Errata)

Browse Search

UPDATES TO&ERRATA IN CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO 2018 ATM by the Board of Selectmen and stakeholders is valid; however, those elements were not properly challenged during any value engineering that has occurred on this project. Such value engineering is essential to a final-cost evaluation. Further, no decision has been made on any of the five items totaling approximately$200,000 that have been identified as savings before, or add alternates in, the bid—which would reduce the appropriation. Previous funding brought the project to Design Development. The original intent of the Article 22 was to appropriate $200,000 to carry through Bid Documents—which this Committee unanimously supports. The current Article 22 has expanded to include construction funding; hence the$4,575,000 amount. This proposed appropriation would be the fourth for this project—the most-significant factor for those members in favor of approval. However, we also note that the project size and scope has increased from an initial $1,700,000 estimate for a renovation and expansion to that current request to finish funding a new–building project. While the multi-year timeline has contributed to that growth, a large share is due to a major growth in program requirements. Having a precise construction-cost estimate at construction/bid documents is a prudent choice—a significant factor for those members opposed to approval. Waiting until the Fall to appropriate construction funds will not cost anything extra because the bidding, in either case, would not be until next spring and reduced contractor costs offset expected inflation. Proponents provided several non-financial reasons for funding construction now, but they were not convincing to our Committee. The Town's Historic District Commission (HDC) has seen some of the current design and is aware of the future building's massing. It also knows that demolition of the current building— which is formally listed on the Historic Register—is implied by the new building design. However, those members against approval are concerned that the HDC has not formally, or informally, voted to approve the proposed new building or to demolish the current Visitors Center. The HDC, which has the final authority, has never been asked to take a formal stance on any of the elements of the project within its purview. The Battle Green area is especially sensitive, so it is troubling to approve construction funding before that Commission has voted its acceptance. Several years ago, the HDC said that the Hosmer House could not be torn down or even moved. Members opposed to this Article do not think that any construction appropriation— much less one of this magnitude—should be made without that Commission, if applicable, having granted approval. Another factor for the members opposed is that debt-service modeling is now a de facto standard for large capital projects in the budget process. However, this project is being advanced without any such modeling in place, especially in light of the other capital projects that are on the five–year plan. In the end, this Committee is evenly split on approval of construction funding under this Article. 3