Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-04-23-ATM-AC-rpt3APPROPRIATION COMMITTEE TOWN OF LEXINGTON 3rd REPORT TO THE 2007 ANNUAL TOWN MEETING Article 36: Appropriate for Public Works Facility (Supplement to 1St Report, Released Apri14, 2007 & 2°a Report, Released Apri121, 2007) Released April 23, 2007 Appropriation Committee Members Fiscal Year 2007 Alan M. Levine Chair ~ Deborah Brown Vice-Chair Robert N. Addelson (ex-officio; non-voting) ~ John Bartenstein • Rodney E. Cole Richard Eurich • Pam Hoffman ~ David G. Kanter ~ Michael J. Kennealy • Eric Michelson APPROPRIATION COMMITTEE 3rd REPORT, April 23, 2007, TO 2007 ATM Warrant Article Analysis and Recommendations ArtlCle 36: Funds Re uested q Funding Committee Appropriate for Source Recommendation PUb11C ~OrkS $25,180,000 Excluded Debt $25,180,000 (9-0) Facility Preface Under this Article, the Town is being requested to appropriate additional funding to complete the design, the construction, and all other aspects of a new facility for the Town's Department of Public Works (DPW) on the site of the current complex at 201 Bedford Street. The new facility would collocate all of the DPW administration, the Town's Engineering Department (which is part of DPW), and the municipal and non-school-based schools facility maintenance personnel with the DPW operations work force. If approved by Town Meeting and the voters, all the funding for the project-past and future-could become excluded debt as provided for in Proposition 21/2. We believe the Town-including elected officials, staff, and residents-are in nearly universal agreement on many facts about the DPW facility. In particular, that the current facility is at least 20 years past what should have been its "end of life." The DPW work force labors in an environment that fails to meet building codes and in many ways adversely impacts the potential for improved productivity. Beyond just failing to accommodate workers and visitors-whether residents or contractors-with disabilities, there is an unwelcoming and inefficient interface between the staff and the public. As a consequence, the current facility adversely affects the DPW's ability to provide public service. We do not believe it is being too harsh or blunt to say the current facility is a disgrace. We also believe there are many other aspects of our DPW (and thus its facility needs) that may not be as well appreciated and, thus, understate the importance of bringing the DPW facility into the 21St century. First and foremost is that the nature and breadth of the DPW's responsibilities. Whether directly or indirectly, its activities affect each and every resident, every day and every hour-or as is said today, "24/7". So whether it's plowing, sanding, or maintenance of streets and highways; maintaining public grounds including parks, athletic fields, and cemeteries; ensuring handling of trash, recycling, and household waste; maintaining water, sanitary sewer, and storm drain systems; maintaining municipal buildings; or ensuring transportation services including LEXPRESS; we all depend on the DPW all the time. Furthermore, the DPW is afull-fledged partner, along with the Police and Fire Departments and key Town staff and elected officials, on the Town's emergency-services team. Whether it's keeping the roads open during a weather emergency, restoring water and wastewater services, clearing downed trees, pumping out flooded homes or areas, or a host of other operations, the DPW is absolutely essential to the well-being of our Town. Recent History of this Project Preliminary planning and design efforts for a new DPW facility commenced in earnest with the approval of a $720,000 appropriation by the 2005 Annual Town Meeting. The planning was, and still is, being led by the Permanent Building Committee (PBC) at the direction of the Board of Selectmen. After a long process, with a number of public hearings and meetings to get input from the DPW staff (for their programmatic needs) and from neighbors and other citizens, a plan for a new facility was presented to the 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 APPROPRIATION COMMITTEE 3rd REPORT, April 23, 2007, TO 2007 ATM vehicle storage and operations area would reduce the total capital and operating life-cycle costs to the Town as opposed to an outdoor vehicle storage by about $11M (net present value). We note that while many aspects of their analysis could be debated because the effects considered are difficult to quantify definitively, the conclusion so strongly favors the indoor, minimally heated, storage-and-operations alternative that it would not change even if some of the advantages were eliminated from the accounting. In early February, the Board of Selectmen asked this Committee and other stakeholders whether, based on the work of the review team, they would support the continuation of work by the design team through the 50% completion of construction drawings for the Annual Town Meeting. This Committee voted unanimously: (1) To endorse the "review & confirm" process as responsive to the direction given by the 2006 Fall STM2; (2) To support the adjusted design as reasonable to the Town's needs for the DPW for the foreseeable future (e.g., ~50 years); and (3) To endorse continuing to develop the construction documents based on the adjusted programmatic design so that amore-detailed design, with more precise costing for both capital and operating, would be ready prior to the 2007 Annual Town Meeting-with the expectation that this Committee would provide its opinion on that further-defined project at that Town Meeting. This Committee noted that it was endorsing the overall programmatic plan, including, among all the other aspects of the plan, the general size of the building, the decision to move the DPW senior administration and the Engineering Department from the Town Offices Building and the Municipal Building Maintenance Department from Cary Memorial Building to 201 Bedford Street, the inclusion of space in the new facility for the Schools senior maintenance staff (which space would accommodate a joint municipal/schools facilities-maintenance department), and the decision to include a minimally heated, indoor, vehicle storage and operations area. The Board of Selectmen and other committees also endorsed the recommendations resulting from the review process. With those confirmations having been made, the Board of Selectmen gave the PBC the go-ahead to proceed with the design to the point of 50% completion of construction documents. The design process continued with attention to the heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC), electrical, and plumbing systems; the projected costs of energy for those systems; and the plans for operations during the construction. Much progress was also made on the exterior appearance-including the important "public face" of the facility (the facade seen from Bedford Street, from the Minuteman Bikeway, and from the other adjoining properties). Issues on those matters have been addressed to our satisfaction. Upon achieving 50% completion of the construction documents, the design team sent them to a firm that used them to develop a new cost estimate. The PBC and the design team presented the design and that cost estimate to the Board of Selectmen on April 18, 2007. The estimated cost of the somewhat smaller and slightly reconfigured facility is $27.47M-which is being rounded to $27.SM. (That includes the $2.32M already appropriated and used for the design process.) More detailed information on the design, project costs, projected energy costs, and key-design rationale may be found at httpa/ci.lexington.ma.us/dpw/New%20Facility/DPW%20facilit .htm . Conclusion As one considers the wisdom of spending $27.SM on a new facility, we reiterate the points made in the Preface of this review that every resident takes advantage of, and benefits from, services provided by the DPW. Furthermore, it is the Town's responsibility to provide decent working conditions for its employees. The condition of the present facilities has deteriorated to the point that it is incumbent upon us to do something about them. 3 APPROPRIATION COMMITTEE 3rd REPORT, April 23, 2007, TO 2007 ATM From along-term perspective, there will be many advantages to having a new facility. Again, coming back to points in the Preface of this review, these advantages include: • the efficiencies to be obtained by having the DPW operations, DPW administration, and the Engineering Department in one location, • having all engineering drawing archives in one location rather than split between the Town Offices Building and 201 Bedford Street, • locating employees in spaces designed for efficient communication within each DPW division and among the various divisions, • providing suitable space for a combined facilities department that will provide enhanced expertise and better maintenance of both school and municipal buildings, • eliminating the present need to stack vehicles indoors at close of business and to unstack them every morning, • improved emergency response times, • much improved lighting and working conditions, • better maintenance of vehicles and equipment, • radiating less noise and creating less light pollution that bothers the neighboring residents, and • minimized operating cost for acode-compliant facility From either a financial or non-financial perspective, the long-term benefits of a new facility are significant. The Town expends at least $4M (and possibly much more) each year on the internal operations of the DPW. Over the next 50 years, those expenditures will total more than $200M in present-day dollars. Such a high number suggests that the cumulative life-cycle cost savings in dollars or improvements in services from efficiencies such as those noted in the above list could be comparable to, or even greater than, the immediate cost of a new facility. However, even though we do not have a quantitative projection and do not see the feasibility of accurately estimating the savings from more efficient operations, it is our conclusion and recommendation that the Town should proceed now with the proposed facility. Based on the substantial information that we have received about the project since early December, we believe that the scope of the project is appropriate. Further significant reductions in the facility for the purpose of reducing the capital project costs would likely lead to relatively higher operating costs over the long term, would adversely impact DPW operations, and thus would not be in the Town's interest. The proposal before Town Meeting is to appropriate the balance of the funds (i.e., $25,180,000) needed to complete the project under this Article, contingent on the approval of the project by the voters in a debt-exclusion referendum this June. The debt exclusion would cover the entire project including the $2.32M in funds that have already been appropriated. If the project were to be approved by Town Meeting and the voters, the funds would be borrowed to do the work, and the debt would be repaid over a 20-year period. The exact details of the debt repayment are not yet determined. For example, as water and wastewater operations are conducted under the DPW umbrella, some of the debt could reasonably be repaid from those Enterprise Funds rather than through the exempt tax levy. If that is done, while any increase in utility bills resulting from those Enterprise Funds absorbing a portion of the debt repayment will not be eligible for deduction for purposes of Federal income-tax computation; as a practical matter, we would expect any such lost deduction to be minor. We see the cumulative net cost to the average resident being more or less similar regardless of how the debt is repaid. This Committee unanimously (9-0) recommends approval of this Article. 4