TOWN HALL FAQs on the internet -- Now that the answers to “Frequently Asked Questions” have been published on the Town’s website, the clear intent is exposed. It is a pity - this is now the fourth year and the approach is still identical. Why do we need a NEW Town Hall and build in the parking lot - as stipulated to avoid a less costly renovation? It is repeated that renovation is not considered nor even discussed as the building is collapsing, does not meet current needs, ADA nor current codes. The FAQ data states the apocalypse, and repeats the flooding. What is not noted is the recent engineer’s favorable review of the structure and the mason’s discussion on site with two officials indicating “no problems”. All of this is in spite of the consultant’s report that two EQUAL options were being presented to the Town with the same price. All new systems, code adherence, ADA, energy and other improvements are included for both. The fact that the renovation as it was presented in 2011 was oversized and inefficient and had a problem estimate, that when corrected was $3 million dollars less is ignored! The Working Group has conceded by using the word “minimally” at meetings that building in the parking lot will be disrupting with no parking, noise, dirt and other problems including added costs. The fact that no parking at all over a long period is minimal? They even suggest that we can park at the Igo School lot. The last point they comment on is the lease ... why did they request 17,500 SF when they only needed 12,000 SF? No wonder the Selectmen rejected it for “economic considerations”. The action required to build “A NEW TOWN HALL” follows; the soft money will come from “free cash”. It is available, but they don’t mention that this direction avoids the 2/3rds vote that they lost at the last session. And again there will be no choice, only the NEW. The inference is that there is no one in Town who can provide the correct numbers for this project, therefore we must wait until the construction bids September 2015 for the real number. They cite the “improvements” of the NEW --- building code, ADA, energy, etc., but these apply to both options. Their explanation on what was “cut” and why the offices are larger provide no answers. The first discusses the “common space” - corridors, stairs, etc., as cut to 1.3%, yet their calculations are at 1.5%. And the new office enlargement even after 3 years of remaining unchanged and unchallenged, is called as being originally “incorrectly stated” . The Cost section has many problems. Everyone had agreed in a meeting that 14,500 SF was adequate. They now ask for 15,500 SF; this number will cost $8.2 million not their $7.2 million. And the base costs after “a survey” which they noted $450 to $500 per SF, is really $544/SF. They stipulate it is “unclear” ... “unconfirmed” where the renovation proponents get their numbers, yet no one yet has identified the source for their numbers. They do admit in this section that IF the renovation is pursued it must meet all of the code and building upgrading noted above. This is exactly what the original option PROPOSED! They question the $13.5 million number released in the paper; it includes their 15,500 SF number, the DPW cost (as they are currently in TH), drainage work on South St, blasting in the parking lot, repairs to the existing building, and of course the BOND COSTS! Which they claim should never be added to any discussion but this is the real end costs of this project. There is more detailed information to be released; look in the paper this week and next, look on Facebook and the discussion group. Their data is too general, very little detail and lacking the source attributions. Moreover the RFP is listing faulty numbers much as the Lease RFP did and look at what it got us. The “soft money” RFP states very clearly that the Working Group becomes redundant once the RFP is released. It is the NEW or nothing! Their mind was made up months and years ago, so forget it, but what of the $4 million dollar difference???
Posted on: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 15:25:14 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015