\u30d7\u30e9\u30f3\u30af\u30d3\u30b8\u30e7\u30f3\u30b7\u30b9\u30c6\u30e0\u30ba\u306f\u3001\u4ee5\u4e0b\u306e\u3088\u3046\u306a\u696d\u52d9\u7528\u30a2\u30d7\u30ea\u30b1\u30fc\u30b7\u30e7\u30f3\u306e\u30dd\u30fc\u30bf\u30d6\u30eb\u691c\u67fb\u304a\u3088\u307324\u6642\u9593365\u65e5\u30e2\u30cb\u30bf\u30ea\u30f3\u30b0\u7528\u306e\u8d64\u5916\u7dda\u753b\u50cf\u30bd\u30ea\u30e5\u30fc\u30b7\u30e7\u30f3\u3092\u88fd\u9020\u3057\u3066\u3044\u307e\u3059\uff1a\u65e9\u671f\u706b\u707d\u691c\u77e5\u3001\u88fd\u9020\u3001\u5909\u96fb\u6240\u30fb\u30c8\u30f3\u30cd\u30eb\u3001\u96fb\u6c17\u30d1\u30cd\u30eb\u30fb\u30ad\u30e3\u30d3\u30cd\u30c3\u30c8\u3001\u8caf\u8535\u65bd\u8a2d\u3001\u30c7\u30fc\u30bf\u30bb\u30f3\u30bf\u30fc\u3001\u4f53\u6e29\u4e0a\u6607\u30b9\u30af\u30ea\u30fc\u30cb\u30f3\u30b0\u306a\u3069\u3067\u3059\u3002\u5f53\u793e\u306f\u3001\u7c73\u56fd\u306e\u8d64\u5916\u7dda\u30bb\u30f3\u30b7\u30f3\u30b0\u6280\u8853\u306e\u4e2d\u5fc3\u5730\u3067\u3042\u308b\u30ab\u30ea\u30d5\u30a9\u30eb\u30cb\u30a2\u5dde\u30b5\u30f3\u30bf\u30d0\u30fc\u30d0\u30e9\u306b\u672c\u793e\u3092\u7f6e\u3044\u3066\u3044\u307e\u3059\u30022020\u5e74\u306b\u8a2d\u7acb\u3055\u308c\u305f\u5f53\u793e\u306e\u8a2d\u8a08\u30c1\u30fc\u30e0\u306f\u300115\u5e74\u4ee5\u4e0a\u306b\u308f\u305f\u3063\u3066\u8d64\u5916\u7dda\/\u53ef\u8996\u30ab\u30e1\u30e9\u30b7\u30b9\u30c6\u30e0\u304a\u3088\u3073\u73fe\u5728\u4e16\u754c\u4e2d\u306b\u6d41\u901a\u3057\u3066\u3044\u308b\u88fd\u54c1\u306b\u643a\u308f\u3063\u3066\u304d\u307e\u3057\u305f\u3002\u5f53\u793e\u306f\u3001\u304a\u5ba2\u69d8\u72ec\u81ea\u306e\u8d64\u5916\u7dda\u30a4\u30e1\u30fc\u30b8\u30f3\u30b0\u30cb\u30fc\u30ba\u3092\u6e80\u305f\u3059\u305f\u3081\u306b\u304a\u5ba2\u69d8\u3068\u5354\u529b\u3059\u308b\u3053\u3068\u3092\u5c02\u9580\u3068\u3057\u3066\u3044\u307e\u3059\u3002 \u5f53\u793e\u306e\u5b9f\u7e3e\u3042\u308b\u30b7\u30b9\u30c6\u30e0\u306f\u3001\u30a8\u30cd\u30eb\u30ae\u30fc\u751f\u7523\u30fb\u6d41\u901a\u3001\u98df\u54c1\u751f\u7523\u3001\u8f38\u9001\u3001\u7523\u696d\u30aa\u30fc\u30c8\u30e1\u30fc\u30b7\u30e7\u30f3\u3001\u4f53\u6e29\u4e0a\u6607\uff08EBT\uff09\u691c\u51fa\u306a\u3069\u306e\u5546\u696d\u7528\u9014\u3067\u4e16\u754c\u7684\u306b\u8a2d\u7f6e\u3055\u308c\u3066\u3044\u307e\u3059\u3002
The concept plan for the department of public works facility and fire substation.<\/p>\n
The concept plan for the department of public works facility and fire substation.
The Finance Committee was given an opportunity to comment on the estimated cost of the proposed joint facility for the Department of Public Works (DPW) and fire substation during a meeting held on Tuesday, July 15<\/span>.
The aging fire station, originally constructed in 1950, is outdated and, due to its proximity to the floodplain, is at risk of flooding during heavy storms and rising seas. The DPW facility, built in 1972, is also considered too small, run-down and past its useful lifespan. The current DPW facility does not meet safety code requirements.
The estimated cost to replace the facility is projected to be approximately $58.2 million and the current DPW location on Route 130 has been selected as the optimal location for the project.
As an alternative, Mike Richard of Weston & Sampson, the design firm for the project, said that the group looked at renovating the current structures.
Richard said that both buildings are \u201cseverely undersized\u201d for current operations.
When it comes to the current fire station on Route 6A, Richard said that there is a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood elevation three feet above where the finished floor sits. However, he said that in order to meet code the building would have to be raised an additional two feet for a total of five feet.
He said that reusing both of the buildings would require replacement of most aspects of the structure. The main framing and portions of the foundations would be the main salvageable aspects of both buildings, with some additional work needed in order to meet the code.
Richard said that renovating the DPW building is projected to cost $7.6 million and renovations for the current fire station on Route 6A are projected to cost $17.3 million.
However, Richard said that renovating the buildings \u201creally doesn\u2019t address some of the shortcomings of the facility and the square footage requirements.\u201d
Sitework for the proposed joint facility is expected to cost $9,926,000.
Richard said that 68% of the site work costs are general non-site-specific costs, totaling $6,177,507. The site-specific costs make up 32% of the site costs, totaling $2,080,862.
The site-specific costs include the retaining walls, import of fill and paving and curbing of the access road to Charles Street.
Soft costs for the site are expected to total at $12,257,000 and may include special geotechnical services to address the unsuitable soils identified on the site, and permitting and or design costs that may be associated with building adjacent to a landfill.
\u201cAnybody that\u2019s familiar with the site knows that it\u2019s challenging, there are several access points going into the site, there are other uses on the site, and there\u2019s a hill that slopes,\u201d said Richard.
Multiple Finance Committee members noted the site-specific costs and had asked during prior meetings to include alternative sites for the project.
Richard presented two alternative site locations, 34 Quaker Meetinghouse Road and 269 Quaker Meetinghouse Road.
\u201cBoth these sites did involve some additional site specific site work to the point of $1.2 million. But it was also pointed out to us that if we were to relocate the public works facility we need to provide some additional support space for the landfill and transfer station attendants as well,\u201d Richard said, adding that the estimated cost for the transfer station structure is between $1 million and $1.4 million.
\u201cWhen you think about going to another site, particularly one of these two sites, what you\u2019ll find is the cost savings is relatively minimal,\u201d Richard said.
Town Manager George H. \u201cBud\u201d Dunham said that the 269 Quaker Meetinghouse Road location, which is across from the Oak Ridge School, would likely include additional work installing traffic lights at the intersection.
Finance Committee member Nancy A. Crossman said that she felt that the alternative site plans were \u201cskimmed over quite quickly.\u201d
\u201cMaybe having a light isn\u2019t a bad thing because you are probably going to end up looking at maybe a light on [Route] 130,\u201d she said. \u201cWe are looking at a huge increase in the taxes and most people say I can\u2019t afford it, that\u2019s the reality that has to be looked at regardless of the need and I think the need is there.\u201d
Finance Committee member Kevin Klein asked DPW Director Paul S. Tilton if transfer station attendees would still be able to utilize the DPW building at the proposed site. Tilton said that yes, they would be able to continue utilizing DPW space.
Finance Committee member Bob J. Guerin asked if a \u201cbare bones\u201d version of the buildings could be explored.
Dunham said that the team can go back to explore those options.
Guerin also asked if the town could provide a list of other upcoming needs to help inform the decision.
Finance Committee member Matthew D. Anderson said that he was concerned that delaying the project would result in higher costs due to inflation over the years.
\u201cI don\u2019t see how we are doing the town a service, or the taxpayer a service by delaying to get more information to ultimately need to do something,\u201d Anderson said. He added that Fire Chief John J. Burke has worked with the consultants to design a project that is essentially bare bones.
Select Board vice chairman Robert George made a number of suggestions to help cut costs down.
He recommended cutting down on costs in a number of line items, including replacing the old DPW building with the new one in the same spot, rather than putting it in the \u201chole\u201d on the property; he said that this would result in about $10 million in savings.
He also suggested splitting the project because \u201cpeople aren\u2019t going to vote for it\u201d adding that the power plant property could be a possible location for the fire substation.
The Finance Committee will continue the discussion on the project next month.
\u30b3\u30e1\u30f3\u30c8\u304c\u9001\u4fe1\u3055\u308c\u307e\u3057\u305f\u3002<\/p>\n