DON’T CONFUSE US WITH DISSENT! We want to spend $3 million more!!!

    A lengthy presentation was made by the Architect and the Building Committee on the New Town Hall project.  They spent only a few comments on their alteration and addition option.  The Town Manager still wants the NEW plan and this was highlighted in the newspaper headline even as it did not occur at the meeting; then began to stress the apocalypse again but was short-stopped by the Chair.  Most of these issues MUST be corrected whether the facility is new or altered!  The new project option was immediately moved, even at the 2 to 3 million dollar difference.  The newspaper now quotes the construction number at $5.4 million, even as the Architect’s number is $5.9 million.  The paper continues, add “about a million for related costs”, and again the Architect number is over $2 million, not the $6.4 but at the Architect’s official $8 million.
     There was absolutely no discussion whatsoever of the 5 million dollar plan C.  They  are even proposing, as there seems to be a difference of opinion in how to best sell this project, to authorize the first step design work, and then return to Town Meeting for the full authorization.  The theory is that if there is any reluctance or guilt to proceed, after the expenditure of some $540,000, few would throw it away, but we don’t need to spend this to find out that the project cost approaches $8 million, rather than the $5.1 million.  (Please note that State fee recommendations list this number at $304,500.)!!!  And please remember that the $1.7 million “available” from the HS project is bond money, where the principal and interest will continue to need to be paid charged to the HS account!
    What is ignored is the fact that whatever problems exist in the old structure are cheaper to correct as the shell exists rather than constructing new to resolve the same problems.  All of the shortcomings of accessibility, the number of toilets, the earthquake framing, heating and air conditioning, sprinklers, etc. must be done in the same manner for either proposal.  The difference confirmed in the Architect’s lengthy estimate documents is that the construction cost of the alteration work for the same 13,852 SF area is less costly by a sum of $75 per square foot; $221 versus $146 per square foot (SF).  If we add the other costs for fees, inspections, testing supervision, etc., this $75 grows to roughly double or some $2 million dollars.  Just one line item of note, the earthquake safe structural frame with the concrete and masonry costs some $215,000 for the alteration, compared with $910,000 for the new equivalent SF area!  The frame and shell is there ... use it!  And save TAX dollars.
    The new option requires the clean out of the building as does the alteration option.  The new option requires demolition, then excavation work and foundations, steel and slab construction, masonry exterior, and roof framing as items which are not necessary in the alteration.  This takes time ...  While this is being done, the altered structure could already be doing interior insulation, roofing, subdivision of spaces, heating, plumbing and so on just as the new building but months sooner.  So the contention that the altered option will take months longer is nothing but fiction!  And how much added fuel will be consumed in the manufacturing and transporting the demolition materials, steel, concrete, masonry etc. for the new facility and the Manager’s new office!
    Whenever a proposal shows an equal cost for new vs altered, one must seriously analyze this proposition.  New is always easier and the fee schedules of the state and industry reflect this; but it is costlier.  The Architect’s own numbers for construction show a major difference between the two if the size is identical.  Noone has stated that plan C cannot be done at the same size, they apparently cannot and DO NOT contest this, ... they just don’t wish to discuss it.  They just want a NEW building.  In analyzing the proposals, the Architect’s own handout showed a difference in programmed square footage of 3,092 SF favoring the new option!  If we make the program areas the same by removing the fat, the altered option shrinks to less than 18,000 SF.  And if we reduce the corridor/stair area, which plan C does, we are under the 17,000 SF goal or equal!  At this SF area, the cost is now $5,170,000. for plan C and not the $8 million!
    There has been no discussion as to whether Plan C works by the Architect or the Committee or the Selectmen!  Instead they speak of the proposed ground floor ceiling height, the ceiling sprinkler piping and ducts.  Option C has but 35% of the ground floor occupied by office type areas, the other half is the storage program areas.  The exposed concrete plank as exists would be painted where necessary as done in school and other government facilities.  The leading proponent of this construction is Gilbane Contractors, and they have never been criticized for their use of this material.  NO, we are told we will have ceilings which will not meet code, in spite of the Architect’s own estimate for ceilings at both levels as well!  The plank meets code as is!  Certainly we do not need ceilings in the storage half or large file area of the Building Department, and the remaining can have the tiles if desired suspended between the few existing beams.  And most of the ducts and piping can be contained in this storage area or on the perimeter.
    Plan C has either equal or larger program areas than the new option plan, including the 150 SF more for the Manager’s area.
    The Manager’s continuing apocalypse contention often stated is faulty ... it is clear that he wants a new facility.  It is implied that the roof cannot be fixed; the foundation drains do not work; waterproofing and insulation is faulty; and the toxicity cannot be cleaned up; I can certainly go on.  When you are ill, you call your doctor, and get help.  You don’t cut your leg off for an ingrown toenail, you get it fixed.  Electrical and Heating/AC issues, accessibility, sprinkler, security cannot be done in an newly open altered space because it is not new!  Nonsense!  We did it at the Ahearn, Igo, the HS, highway garage, and the private sector does this as normal operations.  The Architect even added that an expert had said that the quality of the brick material and workmanship was unusually good, especially as there were no stress cracks!
    If this structure because it is 48 years old should be torn down and replaced at a premium of $2+ million, so should most of our other Town Buildings, and half of our residences and commercial facilities.
    It is my firm belief that the altered plan C, with it’s budget, should be placed on the ballot and warrant for the TOWN’S approval. To avoid a vote saving nearly $3 million dollars should be a cause for a recall!

Dick Heydecker, 63 Grove Street, 508-543-9412