59°
NORTHBRIDGE, Mass. – Northbridge voters will not be asked to fund construction of a Department of Public Works (DPW) facility at the Fall Annual Town Meeting in October.
Instead, they might be asked to authorize purchase of an existing building if studies, yet to be conducted, show an existing building could be cost-effectively modified as a DPW facility.
Those decisions were made by the Building, Planning and Construction Committee (BPCC) at a meeting last night during which Selectman Thomas Melia said he sees no support in the community for a proposal to redevelop the DPW on Fletcher Street.
A feasibility study conducted by HKT Architects and funded with $78,000 approved by voters last October, confirmed the DPW could stay on Fletcher Street despite its location on the banks of the Mumford River.
But the price tag for the proposed 19,000-square-foot facility is $8 million. “As soon as they came out with that figure I knew you were dead in the water,’’ Melia said.
Two weeks ago, the BPCC learned that a warehouse at 371 Douglas Road, considered a potential DPW site a year ago, was for sale and at a reduced price.
DPW Director James Shuris said he looked at that building with Building Inspector James Sheehan and it’s a site that could work, though the building would have to be modified. “I feel confident we could make it work,’’ Shuris said.
“We’re looking at this building or another existing building that might not be 100 percent what we need, but let us do our job in a safe manner,’’ he said.
Another building being considered is a group of garages in Linwood behind the car wash on Linwood Avenue. Town Manager Theodore Kozak said the property owner said he’d be willing to sell the property to the town.
The cost of modifying the buildings is unknown, however, and Shuris and BPCC member Paul Bedigian were asked to come back to the committee with numbers.
If costs aren’t known by Town Meeting, Kozak said the article authorizing the purchase of property could be passed over.
Comments (149)
Rumor may have it a group of solid tenured Citizens are patiently waiting for a written response back from the BPCC. Relative to its presentation on 8/16/2012 on the merits of their economical priced DPW Facility Template at Fletcher Street and the WWTPlant Site. Plus relative to the applicable use of MGL 44E, as our Town Counsel and AG's Office advised the Town can use.
"That's The Way It Is, For Friday, August 24, 2012."
Answers to questions:
DPW can be built in Northbridge using 44e according to numerous conversations with Attorney Anderson in the AG’s office.
From your point of view, why the difference in opinions on this?
HKT reported that they called the AG’s office and were told 44e could not be used. Three citizens had a meeting with Attorney Anderson a couple of weeks ago and she confirmed that 44e could be used.
• HKT-Cost of the DPW building from their report: $ 4, 602,108.00.
• Mitchell Team-Cost of the DPW building-$ 1,200,000.00.
From my quick calculations the HKT design works out to be $238 per ft. sq.
and the Mitchell design works out to be about $98 per ft. sq. (assumed to be 44E ?)
If you factor in lets say an additional 40% for if it is done at prevailing wage rates you are in the ball park of approximately $138 per ft. sq. for the Mitchell design. Having the benefit of seeing both reports coupled with an extensive background in a construction trade do you have any idea or personal suspicion where the difference of $100 per ft. sq comes from?
Prevailing wage is in the Mitchell team proposal. The report that it was not was erroneous. Neal Mitchell designed the steel columns to be spaced per the actual size of the vehicles to be stored and came up with his square footage-an engineering concept that he is very familiar with. I have no idea why HKT's is so much higher but have complete confidence in the Mitchell budgets.
• HKT square footage: 19,300 from current DPW director’s program and the BPCC.
• Mitchell Team square footage: 12,312 from previous DPW director’s program and the BPCC.
If I remember correctly the Mitchell design did not include the dedicated storage of the 3 Senior vehicles did it? My guess is that would account for approximately 1000 ft. sq. +/- in the building sizes. Personally I don't have a hang-up with the additional sq. footage if that is what the current director and his entire team deem appropriate.
I believe there are two vans and they were not part of the original discussion so are not in the Mitchell design. It’s possible they could be stored in the maintenance bay at night or one of the larger tents could be moved to Highland Street. As for the count used in the Mitchell design it came from the Treasures office who supplied actual vehicles that were in the system so we don’t know why there are now more in the HKT design. The Director has mentioned he would be looking to downsize the fleet in the coming years to have multi-purpose vehicles.
Also if remembered correctly the Mitchell design was a result of discussions that likely only included the previous director? To be honest with you being familiar with the former director and his assistant I place far more value in the current teams assessment than the previous regime.
The Mitchell design was put together in many meetings with input from the previous director, the BOS and members of the BPCC.
• HKT fee: $ 575,978.00 (Pre-engineered facility), $ 637,400.00 (Stick built).
• Mitchell Team fee: Donated
• HKT site development costs: $ 973,479.00.
* Mitchell Team site development costs: $ 250,00.00.
I would assume a large portion of the difference in those numbers is attributed to reclamation and reuse of the former site? If so my opinion would be that it's expense is one that would be incurred by the Town at a later date if the site was abandoned.
HKT, from their report, estimates $350,000.00 to remediate the site but as I recall they did not commit to that amount being the final number which would not be known without more study. I have no experience in site cleanup rules and regulations so cannot respond to what “might” have to be done.
• HKT total all soft costs: $ 1,543,428.00.
• Mitchell Team soft costs: either donated or within the original $ 2,150,000.00 estimated costs.
What are soft costs?
From HKT’s report: Architectural/engineering fees, CPM, transition costs, printing and advertising, legal costs, financing costs, builders risk insurance, communications low voltage, advertising, commissioning, testing, other equipment, other equipment design fees, furniture, FFE design fees, permitting, site abatement/hazardous, clerk of the works and additional services. Each one of these has a number associated with it. I would suggest anyone interested further seek a copy from the Director or the Town Manager.
• HKT site abatement/hazardous waste: $ 350,000.00.
• Mitchell Team: Non required on Providence Road but the town may have to do some abatement on Fletcher street-cost unknown.
• HKT total costs: Stick built-$ 8,554,830.00; 100% pre-engineered-$ 7,804,251.00.
• Mitchell Team total costs (2010): $ 1,650,000.00 (railroad crossing and new driveway have been deleted from the original pricing.
Can you agree that if the Mitchell design was implemented on the Fletcher St. site that it too would incur major cost increases associated with demolition, reclamation, engineering (whether donated or otherwise it would still need to be done), costs associated with the back foundation wall of the facility to be a structural element.
Using 44e eliminates most of the engineering and all of the architectural cost of a conventional building. There was a wall in the WWTP design so that at least some, if not all, of that cost is in the original proposal. As for demolition, other than the hazardous waste I cannot imagine a huge cost in tearing down and removing the existing buildings but I am no demolition guy although I have destroyed plenty of things in my own home over the years.
To me the biggest benefits to the Fletcher St. proposal are that first and foremost it cleans up and reuses that site rather than letting it go fallow and essentially being a shoe that is waiting to drop on the heads of future generations. Secondly it does not impede in any way shape or form on the Sewer Divisions ability to expand in the future for DEP changes that everyone knows are inevitable.
The building on the WWTP site is to be located to the left of the existing office building and would in no way impact any future expansion of the treatment building or its exterior site. The Mitchell team presented a generic building to the BPCC last Thursday that can be built on either site and urged the BPCC to give it serious consideration.
Let’s just work together and build something. The infighting and head butting has to stop.
Thank you for your time on this and other previous projects throughout town.
Thank you.
Additional facts about the DPW issue with numbers taken from reports by HKT and Mitchell Engineering:
• HKT-Registered architects/engineers in Massachusetts.
• Neal Mitchell-Registered engineer in Massachusetts.
• HKT-designed multiple DPW facilities.
• Neal Mitchell-designed multiple DPW facilities
• HKT-DPW in Northbridge cannot be built using 44e.
• Mitchell Team-DPW can be built in Northbridge using 44e according to numerous conversations with Attorney Anderson in the AG’s office.
• HKT-Cost of the DPW building from their report: $ 4, 602,108.00.
• Mitchell Team-Cost of the DPW building-$ 1,200,000.00.
• HKT square footage: 19,300 from current DPW director’s program and the BPCC.
• Mitchell Team square footage: 12,312 from previous DPW director’s program and the BPCC.
• HKT fee: $ 575,978.00 (Pre-engineered facility), $ 637,400.00 (Stick built).
• Mitchell Team fee: Donated
• HKT site development costs: $ 973,479.00.
Mitchell Team site development costs: $ 250,00.00.
HKT total all soft costs: $ 1,543,428.00.
• Mitchell Team soft costs: either donated or within the original $ 2,150,000.00 estimated costs.
•
• HKT site abatement/hazardous waste: $ 350,000.00.
• Mitchell Team: Non required on Providence Road but the town may have to do some abatement on Fletcher street-cost unknown.
• HKT total costs: Stick built-$ 8,554,830.00; 100% pre-engineered-$ 7,804,251.00.
• Mitchell Team total costs (2010): $ 1,650,000.00 (railroad crossing and new driveway have been deleted from the original pricing.
Material and labor costs increased during 2011 but material costs have decreased somewhat in 2012 so the contingency in the Mitchell plan could cover the increases. Also, the construction industry in Massachusetts is still in a recovery phase and prices have not escalated substantially because of this which still gives the town the opportunity to save before the construction climate improves.
Jack
Edit for Just a Guy:
There is no apples to apples scenario just four different projects all with different costs. Providence Road=apples; Fletcher street=oranges; Linwood=Bananas and Douglas road =grapes.
The big differenece between two of them is some people don't believe the Mitchell team created a true project with actual costs and it appears nothing will change their minds.
Too bad as it is just as professional a proposal as the one you support and that I agree is a good one but the wrong one for Northbridge at eight million dollars.
Mr. Davis,
For an “apples to apples” comparison for us to absorb.
Of the following, please identify which pertains to the “Mitchell Team”:
Board of Registration of Professional Engineers and Professional Land Surveyors
The Board currently licenses in the following disciplines: Aeronautical, Agricultural, Architectural, Chemical, Civil, Control Systems, Electrical, Environmental, Fire Protection, Heating & Ventilation, Industrial, Land Surveyor, Mechanical, Metallurgical, Mining and Mineral, Naval Architecture, Nuclear, Petroleum, Safety, Sanitary, Structural. The Board no longer, but has in the past, also licensed in the following disciplines: Aeronautical/Aerospace, Architectural Marine, Astronautical, Ceramic, Construction, Corrosion, Electronic, Engineering Physics, Geotechnical, Highway, Manufacturing, Marine, Materials, Plumbing, Quality, Railroad, Systems, Traffic, Transportation
Of the above, please identify which pertains to the certifications that The Town of Northbridge will directly receive by the “Mitchell Team”?
Of the above, please identify which pertains to the insurance liability coverage that The Town of Northbridge will directly receive by the “Mitchell Team”?
upso,
In my opinion will the Town approve an $8-$9 Million Dollar DPW Facility, at the Fletcher Street Site? Plus the jury appears to be still out on the full Clean Up Costs, "note below". ANSWER: A BIG FLAT NO! In the opinion of many, Northbridgite's.
("HKT, from their report, estimates $350,000.00 to remediate the site but as I recall they did not commit to that amount being the final number which would not be known without more study.")
"Strange" Mr. Mitchell was good enough for the Town's Street Scape Project, The High School Project, The Towns Steel Modular Prefabricated building at the Sewer Treatment Facility to house the Sewer Department's large Truck, plus Town of Uxbridge DPW facility. Seems he has already passed the test, in the opinion of many. Plus not to mention all the buildings he has built for this Nation's Department Of Defense all over the World for them.
"Strange" what is good enough for Upton, Uxbridge, Norton, other similar Towns relative to their DPW facilities and 44E, may not be good enough for Northbridge? "STRANGE"
"STRANGE" if the AG's Office states we can use 44E, plus our own Town Counsel, and if 44E can save the Taxpayers money in building a new DPW. Why are we not using it?
Relative to Municipal Liability Insurance, if the BPCC an authorized Town Board in compliance with the Town Charter, and the BPCC Charter and Bylaws. Accepts or put forward a similar plan as Mr. Mitchell's, and is it not also accepted by the Taxpayers, seems it would be thus covered under the Town's Municipal Liability Insurance Umbrella?
upso, Ask yourself this? Plus would our Town Counsel, Three Senior BOS, Half The FINCOM, and Town Manager, accept and advocate for a very similar DPW proposal at the WWTPlant in the Fall of 2010 if their may have been any issues what so ever, to include Insurance? I think not!
Juggy,
Our question was to Mr. Davis!
Your reply is a mater of Free speach not an answer to the question we asked.
We thank you for your answer to other questions.
upso,
Food For Thought Anyway's!
Relative to Municipal Liability Insurance, if the BPCC an authorized Town Board in compliance with the Town Charter, and the BPCC Charter and Bylaws. Accepts or put forward a similar plan as Mr. Mitchell's, and is it not also accepted by the Taxpayers, seems it would be thus covered under the Town's Municipal Liability Insurance Umbrella?
We can always attain an opinion from Town Counsel if their should be any issues or questions, or your fore mentioned questions upso if relevant? But may we listen to him???? 44E., etc, etc!
upso, go take a look at Uxbridges DPW, and the building Mr. Mitchell facilitated for the Town for the Town's Sewer Truck, at the WWTPlant Site. If you may have any doubts?
Juggy,
Our question was to Mr. Davis!
Your reply is a mater of Free speach not an answer to the question we asked.
We thank you for your answer to other questions.
upso,
Even if Mr. Davis does responds logically anything between $1.5 and $2 Million Dollars may be possible, in the opinion of many. In the opinion of many anything drastically higher is just a good waste of effort, and energy, and potentially limited resources.
Logically we should all be working together to attain something in that price range.
upso, ask yourself this question do you really think the Taxpayers of this Town may approve anything over $2 Million Dollars for a DPW, in these present economic conditions? Especially when they see what Upton, Uxbridge, and other similar Towns have, at a cost no way in relation to our $8 Million plus proposed facility some are so set on?
Plus do you think the BOS may even back a $8 million dollar plus facility? My answer is suggestively No.
Juggy,
It dosn't matter what we think!
If our questions would be answered by Mr. Davis then we could develop our response before the Town Meeting.
If not, then we believe that this information is being withheld for some purpose that may not be beneficial to any support for any DPW project anywhere in Northbridge no matter what cost.
The questions are simple so that all can understand what the "Mitchell Team" are entitled to give professional answers within the bounds of their registered professional status, otherwise they carry opinions only and would have to be considered by us as so.
Please give Mr. Davis his opportunity via this medium.
upso,
You may have answered your own question to Mr. Davis?
It dosn't matter what we think! CORRECT!
In fact what anyone may think!
That's the problem you, are not logically thinking what the Town can afford. But I must say some, may be excellent potential lobbyist for an $8 Million Plus facility, correct on Fletcher Street?
upso, I wonder if any possible potential local talent, or other possible 'associated' linked connected interest may be potentially considered as possible extra Consultants? On the potential $8 Million Dollar plus facility, would you know by any chance, just wondering if possible? Where as the Town Manager is the Chief Fiscal Officer for the Town, in my opinion. Mr. Mitchell's approx One Million Dollar Building make's sense at the Fletcher Street site, or the WWTPlant site using 44E. Hopefully the Town Manager may use or potentially consider his Chief Fiscal Officer authority, powers, under the Town Charter in that possible direction, maybe for the Town if so possible inclined?
I am glad the AG's Office and Town Counsel advised the Town can use 44E, it will save the Town a significant amount of Taxpayers money in the opinion of many.
Mr. Mitchell's qualifications, reputation, speaks volumes and his past Municipal work speaks volumes. I hope we can agree upso?
Even if Mr. Davis answered your question upso, in my opinion you may just respond with another possible deflecting type question.
As I thought, some may be excellent potential lobbyist for an $8 Million Plus potential facility, I may wonder why? Plus if we are considering 'thinking' a little bit, it's a 'no starter' at a $8 Million plus. But maybe using Mr. Mitchell's approx $1 Million Dollar building and 44E, it's more of a starter at Fletcher St, or the WWTPlant in my opinion!
Juggy,
Our question was to Mr. Davis!
Your reply is a mater of Free speach not an answer to the question we asked.
We thank you for your answer to other questions.
Mr. Davis,
Who on the "Mitchell Team" are registered engineers or architects?
Why did they not submit a proposal for services along with the other architects and engineers?
Mr. Mitchell is a registered engineer in Massachusetts. A former member of the BPCC assisted Mr. Mitchell with the new driveway/railroad crossing and is also a registered engineer in Massachusetts.
The Mitchell team proposal receiving a majority vote but failing the 2/3rds required at the 2010 fall town meeting was a pro-bono effort by the Mitchell team. The BPCC, Finance Committe and Board of Selectmen were all aware of this.
It did not seem necessary to submit a formal proposal to these same individuals some of whom not only voted against it but lead the effort to defeat it.
After the eight million dollar design was presented and it seemed it would not go forward a group of citizens appeared before the BPCC and gave an option to use 44e to build a modified Mitchell design at either the Providence Road site or Fletcher Street.
Other than some written questions from one member of the BPCC since then we have not heard anything about that proposal.
UPSO:
Mr. Davis,
For an “apples to apples” comparison for us to absorb.
Of the following, please identify which pertains to the “Mitchell Team”:
Board of Registration of Professional Engineers and Professional Land Surveyors
The Board currently licenses in the following disciplines: Aeronautical, Agricultural, Architectural, Chemical, Civil, Control Systems, Electrical, Environmental, Fire Protection, Heating & Ventilation, Industrial, Land Surveyor, Mechanical, Metallurgical, Mining and Mineral, Naval Architecture, Nuclear, Petroleum, Safety, Sanitary, Structural. The Board no longer, but has in the past, also licensed in the following disciplines: Aeronautical/Aerospace, Architectural Marine, Astronautical, Ceramic, Construction, Corrosion, Electronic, Engineering Physics, Geotechnical, Highway, Manufacturing, Marine, Materials, Plumbing, Quality, Railroad, Systems, Traffic, Transportation
Of the above, please identify which pertains to the certifications that The Town of Northbridge will directly receive by the “Mitchell Team”?
Of the above, please identify which pertains to the insurance liability coverage that The Town of Northbridge will directly receive by the “Mitchell Team”?
Jack,
Thanks for shedding some additional light on the subject and for bringing more facts to the table. I have a couple of questions on what you posted and was wondering what you take on them is.
• HKT-Registered architects/engineers in Massachusetts.
• Neal Mitchell-Registered engineer in Massachusetts.
• HKT-designed multiple DPW facilities.
• Neal Mitchell-designed multiple DPW facilities
As for the above two points I agree both are competent to do the job and would serve the Town well.
• HKT-DPW in Northbridge cannot be built using 44e.
• Mitchell Team-DPW can be built in Northbridge using 44e according to numerous conversations with Attorney Anderson in the AG’s office.
From your point of view, why the difference in opinions on this?
• HKT-Cost of the DPW building from their report: $ 4, 602,108.00.
• Mitchell Team-Cost of the DPW building-$ 1,200,000.00.
From my quick calculations the HKT design works out to be $238 per ft. sq.
and the Mitchell design works out to be about $98 per ft. sq. (assumed to be 44E ?)
If you factor in lets say an additional 40% for if it is done at prevailing wage rates you are in the ball park of approximately $138 per ft. sq. for the Mitchell design. Having the benefit of seeing both reports coupled with an extensive background in a construction trade do you have any idea or personal suspicion where the difference of $100 per ft. sq comes from?
• HKT square footage: 19,300 from current DPW director’s program and the BPCC.
• Mitchell Team square footage: 12,312 from previous DPW director’s program and the BPCC.
If I remember correctly the Mitchell design did not include the dedicated storage of the 3 Senior vehicles did it? My guess is that would account for approximately 1000 ft. sq. +/- in the building sizes. Personally I don't have a hang-up with the additional sq. footage if that is what the current director and his entire team deem appropriate.
Also if remembered correctly the Mitchell design was a result of discussions that likely only included the previous director? To be honest with you being familiar with the former director and his assistant I place far more value in the current teams assessment than the previous regime.
• HKT fee: $ 575,978.00 (Pre-engineered facility), $ 637,400.00 (Stick built).
• Mitchell Team fee: Donated
• HKT site development costs: $ 973,479.00.
* Mitchell Team site development costs: $ 250,00.00.
I would assume a large portion of the difference in those numbers is attributed to reclamation and reuse of the former site? If so my opinion would be that it's expense is one that would be incurred by the Town at a later date if the site was abandoned.
• HKT total all soft costs: $ 1,543,428.00.
• Mitchell Team soft costs: either donated or within the original $ 2,150,000.00 estimated costs.
What are soft costs?
• HKT site abatement/hazardous waste: $ 350,000.00.
• Mitchell Team: Non required on Providence Road but the town may have to do some abatement on Fletcher street-cost unknown.
• HKT total costs: Stick built-$ 8,554,830.00; 100% pre-engineered-$ 7,804,251.00.
• Mitchell Team total costs (2010): $ 1,650,000.00 (railroad crossing and new driveway have been deleted from the original pricing.
Can you agree that if the Mitchell design was implemented on the Fletcher St. site that it too would incur major cost increases associated with demolition, reclamation, engineering (whether donated or otherwise it would still need to be done), costs associated with the back foundation wall of the facility to be a structural element.
To me the biggest benefits to the Fletcher St. proposal are that first and foremost it cleans up and reuses that site rather than letting it go fallow and essentially being a shoe that is waiting to drop on the heads of future generations. Secondly it does not impede in any way shape or form on the Sewer Divisions ability to expand in the future for DEP changes that everyone knows are inevitable.
Thank you for your time on this and other previous projects throughout town.
After watching the most recent BOS mtng. i've come to realize if we continue to let the elders of town who don't want to spend the monies they have scroodged away, then we might as well keep making ADHOC committees and wastefully spend monies on more studies to tell us what we already know, lets bite the bullet listen to our DPW workers and give them what they need for christ sake i can't remember the last time they've asked for anything this important but i can remember all the roads we've excepted and all the fields and parks they've been asked to take care of. If we really care about our DPW workers and our million dollars worth of equipment then lets put our monies were our mothes are stop screwing around and get something DONE!! Mr. Shuris and his men have my support of an 8, 10, 15, or if need be 20 million dollars because it's time to stop dumping the towns debt on our children and grandchildren and it's time us as leaders and ELDERS fix our problems!
Great way to look at it!!
Guy,
A great way to look at it is being a "Smart Shopper", a $1 Million or $1.2 Million Dollar Steel Pre-Fabricated, Modular Building, 44E, with a Warranty, like Upton, Uxbridge, Charlton, is a Super Duper way to look at it.
Plus Taxpayers also know we have a Fire Station, Town Hall, Balmer School, Vast untold amounts of Road Work costs, annual 2 1/2% added cost's in the Town operating expenses. Plus the new norm of ever evolving new world of surcharge extra gravy on our Water Bills.
Great way to look at it, "The past is a predictor of the future". Taxpayers and Voters voted down a $2.1 Million Dollar DPW facility in the Fall of 2010.
Anything over $2 Million Dollars with all our other issues on the Taxpayers serving plate, is never going to fly. Lets stop kidding ourselves, shall we?
Juggy,
We have already established that the TRUE cost of the project you dream of will never be as low as you keep typing. Not when you factor in demo & clean-up costs of the old facility or when you take into account the loss of propert tax that the aquisition of another site would mean. As I explained in an earlier post the tax loss of a site like the Old Colony site could likely be in the range of $1.5 million dollars alone for only the fist 50 years or so.
If the voters of Northbridge get sold a facility with a false bill of goods that does not include ALL of the TRUE COSTS of the proposed new facility that will be a huge travesty and disservice to the taxpayers of Northbridge.
As far as a "great predictor of the future"..............you need to look no further than the current DPW facility. That right there is living proof of what years of inaction, neglect, ignorance and tightwad spending will result in.
Guy,
So you agree the price for a 44E, Steel Modular Prefabricated Building (Bids Received Fall 2010) with all the Fixings, Equipment, 12,672 sg.ft., 2010 Fall Town Meeting price $1,200,000?
In a prior post you agreed a $1 Million Dollar Facility could be put down on Fletcher Street?
In my opinion anything over $2.1 Million may not fly.
Yes I agreed that you could put a $1 million dollar building down on the Fletcher St. site. You could also put a $1million dollar building on Mars too. The thing is that the cost to prepare both sites is where it gets to be expensive. In the case of the Mars facility it's the shipping and handling charges on the $1 million dollar building that will kill your budget.
Also for the record before you attempt to distort something else. Even though I agreed that you could put a $1 million dollar building down on the Fletcher St. site, it doesn't mean that it is necessarily the right building for the needs of the department.
My experience is that when you shop things purely by the bottom line.............you usually get what you didn't pay for.................and it will cost you more than you "saved" in the long run.
Guy,
I am taking my Dreamer Hat off and putting on my Realistic Hat, in my opinion the State of our Economy, plus all the other needs coming down the pike for the Town's Taxpayers. Plus the Taxpayers voting down a $2.1 Million Dollar proposal in the Fall of 2010, anything over $2 Million Dollars 'is not going to pass'!
Guy, your talking about a Town that still has almost half its Town Street Lights shut off. Plus its Municipal Budgets level funded for so many years an extra dollar brings a smile to our Municipal Department Heads faces in their annual budget. No money to replace the Traffic Light signals in front of the Fire Station, or to find loose change so our children can play at the American Legion Fields.
I will leave it like this Guy, lets get the best brand new Steel Engineered Prefabricated Modular Steel Building, using 44E, with a Warranty capping it at no more then $2 Million Dollars. DPW Director meets the requirements of Clerk of the Works under 44E, correct, save money? Location to be determined by cost, (WWTPlant-Fletcher Street?) Concerned about the size?, then keep the old building for Cold Storage, less possible clean up? Concerned about a 4 ft knee wall? Put 4ft tall rubber bumpers up where trucks may park? Plus same buildings process and type work for Upton, Uxbridge, Charlton, why not Northbridge?
A 12,672 sq.ft., fore mentioned described Steel building "COMPLETE" at the Fall 2010 Town Meeting Cost, with Wash Bay, $1,200,000 from a Bid received. Total cost $2,150,000, minus the $350,000 for RR Crossing (Appears Town does not care?) minus $100,000 to upgrade the drive way (Appears Town does not care). minus $150,000 if Town does not build a new Salt shed. SAVINGS $600,000 Dollars
NEW APPROX COST RANGE: $1,550,000!
If Upton, Uxbridge, Charlton, Norton, can do it!, WHY NOT NORTHBRIDGE?
Juggy,
There is a big difference between not having money to fix things and not choosing to appropriate and spend the money to fix things.
Every precieved "problem" you just listed could be solved by voting to appropriate the funds. IMHDAO those "problems" are all self inflicted by the masses that willingly choose not to spend.
I'll beat you to the punch on what you are going to sat next..................."but all of the seniors" . My feeling is that a large majority of all of those people who will raise all holy heck if you threaten to raise the taxes to provide the same services they gripe about not having all spend a minimum of $1000 a year at the casino, track, bingo, etc... They never give a second thought to throwing a quarter into a slot machine for hours on end................save 365 of them and lets build the DPW facility we deserve.
Guy,
It's not just the Senior's, think about it would the State give Northbridge almost $18 Million Dollar's or almost half the Towns annual operating Budget yearly. If their was not a well documented financial need for the Town? I don't think so.
Plus the Middle Class, College Students & Student Loans, and the Working Poor have significantly felt the Economic Fall out of the Wall Street Bailout's and the Wall Street Financial collapse of 2007 the most. Plus also the Economic issues in Europe have also impacted our economy also.
What ever happens or does not happen only time may tell???
This 12,000+/- Square foot building is wrong for the Town of Northbridge to build
upso,
In the "Final Chapter" it will be up to the Taxpayers and the Voters to decide what type of DPW facility is right or wrong for the Town.
"Who knows" maybe the new DPW Director will have the pleasure to work out of the same "Garbage Pit", our former DPW Director had to work out of for #18 years.
A $1 Million Dollar level funded annual DPW Budget for many, many, years, speaks Road Condition volumes.
My prediction is that he won't be here anywhere near 18 years regardless of whether there is a new facility built or not.
Just look at his resume....................it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that he is likley somone that needs to be challenged by new problems and situations. On the other hand...........It could also be that he wears out his welcome after a certain amount of time and has to move on. I'd like to think that the search committee did a thorough enough job to rule out the latter.
What may be ones person Cup of Tea, may be different from another person's Cup of Tea. It may be a boring world if everyone's Cup of Tea was the same?
gusjr.:
Understand your Comment, if you were not here at the Time the Town Voted down a $2.1 Million Dollar Facility in the Fall of 2010.
I doubt with that historical footprint the Town Taxpayers may pass any thing over $2 Million Dollars, just my opinion.
Plus still a lot of unknowns with the Economy, some refer to it as being the lost economic Decade for the Middle Class, and Working Poor Americans.
Come on Juggy.............can't you spare a measly .28 cents a day?
That's all it would take................$.28 cents a day to properly house your Bora Bora weed fighting men, women and weed fighting equipment? A measly .28 cents a day....................
Guy,
In today's world hopefully we can agree on being a smart shopper, plus living in the climate of our Economically Challenging world we now live in for the 99%.
If the Town can do a $1 Million or a $1.2 Million Dollar, Brand New Steel Modular Prefabricated building with warranty, 44E, like our Town Counsel wrote we can, why not? A DPW building like Upton, Uxbridge, or Charlton, at Fletcher Street, or the WWTPlant Site, why not? Attain the Civil Eng costs for both sites, plus Sewer Pumping station for Fletcher Street, most economic site go forth to the Taxpayers or both sites if no one can agree?
Plus we have a Fire Station, Town Hall, Balmer School, and still a vast or significant amount of Road Work on the Taxpayers future plate also.
Plus with so many Seniors on fixed incomes, plus who knows what may happen to Medicare, and Social Security.
Plus the Taxpayers have already spoke in 2010 they voted down an excellent $2.1 Million Dollar proposed facility at the WWTPlant. So I doubt anything over $2 Million dollars may fly plus with all the other future Taxpayer projects on our future plates.
Juggy,
It has been explained to you clearly numerous times. What part don't you get when it is explained to you that you can't do things at the Fletcher St. site without triggering some degree of demo, remediation, and grading to get out of the floodplain???? Even Jack concurs that work would be necessary for construction down there. The point is you could put a 1.2 million dollar building down there but it will likely cost lets say $2 million to get the site ready to receive the $1.2 building.
Everything isn't as simple and sanitized as you make it out to be.
Guy,
Sounds like "WWTPlant Site" is the way to go then?
Read my 10:47 AM Comment!!
I never agreed that it should be built there as iIt's the wrong location for it. Thruth be told though if a gun were put to my head and I was forced to decide I would prefer it as opposed to the purchase of the Douglas Rd. site.
If it happens that it may be built at the WWTP the proposal for the $ for the project there should include the full clean-up of the Fletcher St. site.
If we are going to still potentially use the old DPW facility for Cold Storage, or if the Town cannot afford a new Salt Shed what may be the rush on cleaning up the old DPW site?
Now that would be efficiency for ya.............at it's finest.
Having the DPW garage at the WWTP and the salt shed only a mere 2.5 miles away is the most ludicrous idea you have come up with yet. Do you realize the logistics involved in that? Driving the loader back and forth every time you need to get a load of salt? Now you a simple call in for one person to go spot sand has just become a two person job.
The only other alternative would be to store the current loader In cold storage (good luck getting it started on a cold night) and buy a brand new $250k +/- dollar machine to keep at the new facility in order to preform the other tasks it needs to. The loader is what would likely get sent out to push off downed limbs and trees, clear obstructed drains etc, it's used for plowing etc... It is in an emergency response type vehicle and you advocate keeping it in a different location than the facility where the employees respond to? Now that will be a real money saver.....................BRILLIANT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I know and appreciate that you want to save money but.................... pull your head out of your butt.
I never said that there needed to be a rush to get it done. My suggestion right along has been that the cost of decomissioning the existing facility ought to be included in the TRUE COST of any other proposed facility.
Guy,
Easy solve add the $150,000 and put the Salt-Shed back at the same place WWTPlant, 2010 proposal, now approx $1.7 Million still under $2 Million Dollars?
Their is no mandate or law to consider the demolition cost's of Fletcher Street in the over all costs, just your opinion correct? It was not a factor in the Fall of 2010 proposal.
Anything over "$2 Million Dollars" we are all wasting our Time!!!!
Juggy,
There is no mandate to do it but any proposal that is put forth with out it is not an apples to apples comparison to the $8million Fletcher St. proposal.
Also any proposal that does not include clean-up costs is not a fair and accurate portrayal of the true overall cost of the project and impact to the taxpayer. Not including the clean-up is pushing the burden off onto the future budgets and future generations.
In short ignoring the clean-up is fiscally irresponsible. Surely someone who is as frugal as you come off to be can appreciate that.
It's .28 cents a freaking day. Build a $16 million dollar fire station and with the two we'd be likely still less than a dollar a day for both projects combined. It should be a no brainer.
Guy, (An Opinion)
Anything suggested over $2 Million Dollar's for a new DPW we are just wasting everyone's time!!!, in my opinion. Based on all the other Town issues facing the Taxpayers and the Economic conditions facing so many Americans.
We cannot figure in the costs of the Fletcher Street Clean Up yet because we do not have any true final costs figures, correct? DEP/EPA may be able to allow us to just cap it and put Sod over it. Plus we do not know if we can get any Brownfield Grants or any other regular grants to help clean up Fletcher Street or any other help from DEP/EPA, or low interest Federal Clean up loans? correct? Why not defer until we have all these issues conferenced out, for a possible clean up brighter picture, true costs?
In my opinion lets at least move forward with the WWTPlant Site, under $2 Million Dollars sounds grand to many, many, Taxpayers.
Fire Station is not even on the close radar yet until we get the DPW Facility resolved and built. Plus the Taxpayers may never approve a $16 Million Dollar Fire Dept Facility, when they see how Towns like Westport had theirs done basically for free, correct?
It may be closer on the Radar if it can be built like Westport's.
Some feel unless the Town can attain some economically priced property close to the existing Fire Station (To Build New), plus do to the importance of the present Fire Dept location. If the Town cannot attain any property near the Fire Station. Some suggest complete renovation of the existing Fire Station and adding a large Prefabricated, Steel Modular Addition, to the rear of the present Fire Station. Lets get the DPW done first, or not, up to the Tax payers.
My final comment :
"Anything suggested over $2 Million Dollar's for a new DPW we are just wasting everyone's time!!!" In my opinion.
So your basic approach Juggy is to wait until a magic lantern washes up on the shore of the Blackstone River rub it and wait for the Jeanie to award you your gifts.................a new DPW facility and a Fire Station.
I have news for you........the Whitins aren't moving back to town any time soon.........no one is going to build buildings and donate them.
I find it amazing that people will go into Dunkin each day and shell out 2 or three dollars for a drink (many do it several times a day) and never give it a thought but they find it repulsive to consider spending .28 cents a day to properly house a Town Department.
Heaven help us.
Guy,
Rumor has it that Magic Lantern may be a highly dedicated sincere group of long term 'Concerned Citizens' of the Town, some with significant Engineering Back grounds and past and present BOS. Appeared before the BPCC recently with that possible Magic Lantern, of an excellent DPW template and format. If the BPCC may elect to follow the rumored meat of their presentation the Town may have a DPW facility for under $2 Million Dollars, is the possible rumor.
If you were not around in the Fall of 2010 the Town Voted "down" a $2.1 Million Dollar DPW proposal that may have equated to 6 cents a day compared to your 28 cents a day. "Those that forget the past lesson's and mistake's of history are they not bound to potentially repeat them?"
It's not just the 28 cents a day its all the Economic Issues facing the average American today, is it not logical if you can build a DPW facility for under $2 Million Dollars why do it for $8-$9 Million Dollars? Guy, I think P.T. Barnum and Bailey may have loved your outlook!
"Heaven Help Us"!
"It Has!" It may have delivered a very conscientious dedicated group of highly focused honest local Citizens that appeared before the BPCC on 8/16/2012. With a suggestive Mandate of using 44E, and an excellent DPW Design Example, and a prefabricated Modular Steel Building template, with a price Tag for under $2 Million Dollars. Now all the BPCC may have to do is receive this offering and run with a 44E Football, for the Touchdown! May be the rumor from what I here.
Lets think about our Seniors on fixed incomes, College Students, those with College Loans, and our very own Neighbors that are financially hurting in these trying Economic Times.
Anything suggestively presented well over $2 Million Dollars for a new DPW may be just a waste of time, effort, and good energy in my opinion.
"One thing is sure. We have to do something. We have to do the best we know how at the moment... If it doesn't turn out right, we can modify it as we go along."
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Juggy,
I feel that proposal failed because it was a quickly thrown together proposal and it was a poor choice of site.
This fixation of yours with a $2million dollar cap is rediculous. Sizing a building to meet a ficticious budget number rather than the actual needs of the department it will house is a receipe for failure.
As far as your statement of "is it not logical if you can build a DPW facility for under $2 Million Dollars why do it for $8-$9 Million Dollars?"
FOR THE LAST TIME. YOU CAN'T COMPARE THE PROPOSED $2 MILLION DOLLAR PROPOSAL TO THE $8 MILLION DOLLAR ONE BECAUSE THEY AREN'T AN APPLES APPLES COMPARISON. YOU ARE COMPARING APPLES TO WATERMELONS AS THE $8 MILLION DOLLAR PROPOSAL INCLUDES ALL OF THE TRUE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROJECT. THE $8 MILLION DOLLAR PROPOSAL IS THE ONLY PROPOSAL THAT HAS BEEN PUT FORTH TO DATE THAT INCLUDES ALL CONSTRUCTION AND CLEANUP COSTS.
Guy,
P.T. Barnum and Mr. Bailey would have "loved your outlook", plus when you buy a Car if you drive? Do you pay the first price the Car Salesperson may quote to you?
WE CANNOT COMPARE FRUIT BECAUSE WE DO NOT EVEN KNOW THE TRUE COSTS OF THE CLEANUP/BUILDING OF THE FLETCHER STREET SITE, UNLESS YOU DO?
PLUS WE HAVE HEARD SOME PRICES BANTERED AROUND OF $8-$9 MILLION DOLLARS JUST FOR THE BUILDING, CORRECT? PLUS UNKNOWN IF THAT EVEN INCLUDES THE PRICE OF THE SEWER PUMPING STATION, AND ALL OTHER SEWER HOOK UP MATERIALS AND POSSIBLE ASSOCIATED ISSUES, CORRECT? PLUS IS THEIR EVEN A WARRANTY ON THE $4.5 MILLION DOLLAR, STEEL BUILDING YOUR SUPPORTING?
'STRANGE' even a larger building at 19,000 square feet from the Steel Building Company in Suttton, that offers a warranty, would be close to a final cost of just over $2 Million Dollars using 44E at the WWTPlant Site in the opinion of many. Add another $150,000 for a new Salt-Shed and the Town is "all set"! Lot less then the $8-$9 Million Dollar Fletcher Street Building cost and the unknown on the full clean up cost's of the Fletcher Street site, correct?
Since we do not know the full cost of the Clean Up of the Fletcher Street site, plus you already agreed their is no mandate or rush to clean up the Fletcher Street Site. Then defer on the clean up of Fletcher Street Site and build at the WWTPlant Site. Address the clean up of Fletcher Street when we may know the true clean up costs, may get help form the DEP/EPA on clean up costs, and Brownfield Clean Up Grants, other Grants correct?
Plus why do we need a 19,000 sq.ft. facility seems the 13,000 sq.ft. proposed facility in 2010 met everyone's needs? If the Town Manager may be still running the Town in my opinion he should maybe consider splitting the difference and go with a 15,000 sq.ft facility. If it has not been changed in the Town Charter is he not the Chief Fiscal Officer for the Town, and runs the Daily Operations of the Town? Or more question's may need to be asked why did a 13,000 sq.ft., facility work in 2010, and why now we need a 19,000 sq.ft., facility "strange"?
Guy, it appears we may never agree! I go by History, present Economic Conditions, and how the State considers us on the total State Aid it gives to the Town Annually, half our Town Budget. The Town will never support anything far over $2 Million Dollars, your $8-$9 Million Dollar Building, and unknown other costs may be nice for 'Fantasy Island', not for the 'Bridge'! In my humble opinion, and the opinion of many.
If the Town may not fully consider the 44E., 8/16/2010 BPCC Citizens suggestive honest Template, $2 Million Dollar direction, I think P.T. Barnum and Bailey may have a nice Circus Tent the Town may be able to buy on the cheap.
Juggy,
The town already has 4 Circus tents down there and they obviously aren't cutting it.
To the best of my knowledge the $8 million dollar quote wasn't for the building only it was for a complete turnkey operation. As far as I am aware It included all grading, all necessary demo/clean-up, drainage, new salt shed and everything soup to nuts.
If you have anything factual to prove to the contrary by all means lay it out and I'll gladly stand corrected. If not stop knocking it for being outrageous and stop comparing apples and pumpkins.
Guy,
Read Mr. Davis Comment, I think You Have.
Do not recall seeing the Price for the Sewer Pumping Station, or other costs connected to the Sewer Pumping station maybe you have?
I recall the BPCC Chairman saying at a past BOS Meeting they did not have the final total cost for Clean Up of the Fletcher Street area. If they have since received all the fore mentioned costs. I stand corrected? Do you know what they are?
Factual did not the Town Vote down a $2.1 Million Dollar DPW facility in the Fall of 2010? I use that as a guideline why the Town would never support an $8-$9 Million Dollar DPW. Plus also used it to base my opinion anything higher then $2 Million Dollars may be a big waste, of good effort and time.
Plus all the other Economical Issues facing the average American, that have culminated since the Wall Street issues that started in 2007. Plus Senior Citizens on Fixed Incomes, need some consideration.
This 12,000+/- Square foot building is wrong for the Town of Northbridge to build
upso,
In the "Final Chapter" it will be up to the Taxpayers and the Voters to decide what type of DPW facility is right or wrong for the Town.
To the people who are concerned about the size of the proposed building being too big, here is a comparable facility to compare to. Our neighbors to the south, Uxbridge have a facility that between two separate buildings has a total square footage of about 15300 ft. sq. That sq. footage also includes an office areas for the DPW operations (water & sewer) as well as drivers room and Highway Super's office. They have a workforce of 6 Highway division employees (including mechanic, no summer help or management included).
They don't have to store any motorized equipment in tents or have vehicles/equipment just plain left out in the weather. They also aren't housing 3 vehicles for the Senior center either.
My feeling is that the proposed size is right in the ball park of where it should be. It would be a shame to build it too small then have to start the cycle of having to leave equipment exposed to the elements.
Guy, (Opinion)
If we can go to the Moon, and the Berlin Wall can come down surely 'size' of the facility, if that may be a possible hang up to some? The word of recalibration or adding on some extra square feet should not be a major issue, or add extremely to its cost.
Who knows in today's economy if Bids should go out for a Modular Steel Prefab Building, 44E., like from the possible Company in Sutton, or similar. We may all be pleasantly surprised on the cost with today's economy.
All the Power Brokers would have to determine is where to put it? Fletcher Street, or the WWTPlant site, which is above my pay grade?
Has not the DPW Director said several times at BOS Meeting's that the DPW Fleet size will be reduced in the future? Due to going to multi use Vehicle's and multi use interchangeable body functions of those Vehicle's? Plus are not two of the DPW vehicles take home vehicles, maybe three, with the new potential Town Facilities Maint person?
Plus if the Town should stay "STUCK in NEUTRAL" and cannot decide on what location to put the spanking NEW $1 Million Dollar Steel Modular Building (with warranty), like Upton/Uxbridge. Then extrapolate the costs for both locations and present both sites, total costs, to the voters and let the voters decide or not decide on where to put it.
Hopefully something may be able to be worked out? I think we can all agree the Town needs a new DPW.