HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-2-8Minutes for February 8, 2017, adopted June 14
Town of Nantucket
Capital Program Committee A —A Z
www.nantucket -ma .gov )
Z
Members: Christy Kickham (Chair), Peter McEachern (vice chair), Richard Hussey (Secretary), Jf C
Kelp n
Nat Lowell, Pete Kaizer, Stephen Welch r
MINUTES,
Wednesday, February 8, 2017
4 Fairgrounds Road, Training Room — 8:00 am N
Called to order at 8:07 a.m.
Staff. Libby Gibson, Town Manager; Gregg Tivnan, Assistant Town Manager; Brian Turbitt,
Director Finance; Julia Lindner, Financial Analyst; Terry Norton, Town Minutes Taker
Attending Members: Kickham, McEachern, Kelly, Kaizer, Welch
Absent Members: Hussey, Lowell
Late arrival: Welch, 9:06 a.m.
Documents used: Sewer Enterprise Sea Street Bid; Wannacomet Water Company Building Request;
Presentation for Board of Selectmen (BOS).
APPROVE 1.
1. None
II. REVIEW SEA STREET BID STATUS (SEWER ENTERPRISE FUND)
Discussion David Gray, Sewer Manager — Base bids came in just under the appropriation; however, the
alternate packages bids came in over the appropriation by about $500,000. They are asking the
respondents to extend the bids to past Town Meeting. Estimators for the project were within
3.5 %. They could award the base bid but they would have to come back in later for the alternates,
which are critical.
Gibson — Stated the update on this is going to the BOS as well as an update on the Surfside
upgrade project. There is money in the Sewer Enterprise Fund to make up the shortfall.
McEachern — Pointed out that the FEMA flood regulations are affecting the Sea Street project
Asked what would happen if the station failed.
Gray — If the Seas Street generator failed, Downtown would be shut down.
Kickham — Asked if there are improvements to equipment or system as well_
Gray — Everything is coming out to be replaced with all new electronic services, wet wells, and
pumps. The pumps can operate while submerged.
Gibson — At the Finance Committee budget review, they asked that CapCom review this and
provide a consensus; a vote would be okay.
Kaizer — Asked how the alternative packages work.
Gray — Explained the alternative packages. The big budget ticket item is the flood wall which
came in just under $300,000. The flood wall could be done retroactively but it is an integral part
of the platform work in the back. If there were a flood like the storm in 1991, the intake
generator would be under water.
Motion Motion To Support. (made by: Kelly) (seconded by: Kaizer)
Vote Carried 4 -0
Page 1 of 4
Minutes for February 8, 2017, adopted June 14
111. REVIEW • BUILDING REQUEST
l 1SCU`SU >11 Robert Gardner, Wannacomet Water Company (WWC) Manager — Asking for approval of
funding for the new building the funding was approved in a previous Annual Town Meeting
(ATM). He expects the new building to service the Town for 60 years. He has been working with
Loren Sinatra, Energy Outreach Coordinator, to optimize the building's energy efficiency. They
have expended about $275,000 for development and approval of the architectural plans and
Hazmat consultation. The stick -built construction bid came in $4.5M to $5M; they then asked for
bids on panelized construction and accepted Scanlan's bid, which requires $1.3M more in funds;
Scanlan has agreed to hold their price until after ATM approval. We have a funding source, a
well- designed building, and solid numbers.
Kickham — Asked if at any time will the project impact the rate payer.
Gardner — There are many factors that go into setting the rates. There hasn't been a rate increase
for three years and there will probably be one within the next five year but it won't be just
because of the building. Reviewed what aspects affect the rates.
Kickham — Asked if there is anything that is being lost in going with the panelized construction.
Gardner — The State has different regulations for modular construction that eliminates some of
the on -site construction worker costs and allows other significant savings. Pointed out the change
in the complex layout that will make it a safer environment.
Kickham — Asked about the option of the office being incorporated with other Town
departments across the street at 2 Fairgrounds Road.
Gardner — We looked at that; after a survey by LLB, they came back with a plan to have
operations remain at 1 Milestone Road and administration move to 2 Fairgrounds Road. After
careful review, it was decided that doesn't work; there is no clear -cut differentiation between
operations and administration. The skill sets required in operations now is very different and
utilizes computers-to a great degree; this new building will allow for operation's increased use of
technology, provide work stations, and allow for in -house training.
Discussion about when this project first received CapCom's positive recommendation.
Kelly — Compared the Sea Street request compared to this; he is hearing a similar argument with
this project in that they had a bid come in over but there is money to cover the shortfall.
Kickham — Asked for status of 2 Fairgrounds Road municipal building project
Gibson — It is not on the schedule. In 2015, the BOS voted to move toward a municipal office at
2 Fairground Road.
Kelly — It was decided in May 2016 not to proceed with that at this time; the choice was to focus
on other projects: school, fire station, Our Island Home.
Kaizer — Asked how much is allocated to retained earnings annually.
Turbitt — The average balance in retained earnings over the last five years is about $1.8M.
Gardner — Historically the Water Commission has used retained earnings for large projects to
mitigate the need to borrow; the Washing Pond water tower was built with retained earnings.
McEachern — Questions whether or not that much retained earnings should be grabbed with
annually and used for a new building. He can't support this use of retained earnings and would
motion WWC stick with the $3.5M appropriation and look heavily at value engineering the new
design or renovation of the current building; this is the rate payer's money. That amount of
retained earnings suggests the budget is inflated and there is space for reduction in rates. This is
the first time the building and the bid have come before this committee. This is close to 40% over
the estimate.
Kelly — This committee could and probably should debate the pros and cons of centralizing
versus decentralizing municipal offices. We could ask WWC to resubmit everything, but this has
already been approved by CapCom and the Finance Committee. Reviewed all the building
projects that came back asking for and were approved for additional funding.
McEachern — This is the first time this committee has seen this building and a number. The
disparity in the percentage of this building to for example the fire station is higher.
Page 2 of 4
Motion
Vote
Minutes for February 8, 2017, adopted June 14
Gardner — Over the last 22 years, WWC has put in close to $30M on water infrastructure in
regards to pumps, pipes, etc. We are a significant player in the health of the community. At the
end of 2026, 99% of the water mains will have been replaced; there will be no more 1890 pipes or
hydrants over 20 years old with minimal impact on rates. The proposed building is as important
to the WWC operation as the pipes. The budget has money for a joint water and sewer rate
survey.
Kelly — Asked what value engineering had been done on the design to reach the number.
Gardner — They reduced the square footage 4700 and eliminated the full basement The total
project is around $1,000 per square foot.
Kelly — Asked what the estimators project in escalation.
Gardner — The architectural firm looked at 2% to 5 %. The Nantucket factor is closer to 70 %;
that's what Scanlan used to calculate their bid.
Kickham — Asked what considerations the hospital looked at in regards as to where they could
not build.
Gardner — They talked about going into Wyer's Valley; the main issue was the 250 foot clearance
required from the wellhead. Reviewed the State regulations restricting construction in a water
supply area.
Kickham — He is more acceptant of the WWC situation and their remaining in their present
location.
Discussion about the 40% Nantucket Factor and Scanlan's estimate of the Nantucket Factor
being 70 %.
Welch — He believes it is important to commend WWC and the commissioners for the work put
into this project. This is a significant increase on the project. He feels the reserves WWC funds
should be used to serve the public's need. He thinks there is validity in consolidating Town
departments into one building. Pointed out that there is no building recently constructed that
hasn't gone through a building workgroup; believes a workgroup should review this project He
thinks the $1.5M increase recharacterizes this project because it is such a significant increase and
the project was reviewed and approved by a different CapCom. Reviewed issues with other old
Town buildings. The Town needs to leverage every dollar it spends; the Town isn't going to fail
because this new building isn't started in September. This could start after the recommendation is
made. In regards to the Nantucket up- charge of 40 %, we need to negotiate harder.
Turbitt — If the $1.5M isn't allocated, finance can't sign off on the contract. You cannot negotiate
the price on a bid.
Discussion on the motion.
Gardner — We aren't going to change anything at the State level. This building is being
constructed under the cheapest provision of Chapter 149, modular construction. There are
contingencies built into the project. WWC has provided a lot of money and time to the
community. Cited an incident when WWC approved $500,000 of rate -payer money to help the
Town. He feels they have been more than financially responsible to the rate payer over the years.
Invited anyone to tour the building; it's condition is not much better than the 2 Fairground Road
building or the Department of Public Works. Expressed his skepticism in workgroups.
Welch — He feels he needs to differentiate between the tax payer and the rate payer; there are
plenty of people who pay into the system. He feels it unfair to equate a workgroup for this
building to Our Island Home workgroup.
Motion to Support WWC taking $1.5M from their retained earnings to supplement the
capital. (made by: Kelly) (seconded by: Kickham)
Carried 3- 2 / /Welch & McEachern opposed.
Page 3 of 4
Minutes for Februa 8, 2017, ado ted June 14
aK913 I • •
Discussion Kickham — Asked when the BOS wants the presentation.
Kelly — It was mentioned at a meeting; it's on this CapCom agenda to ask if Mr. Kickham is
willing to do that. It would be scheduled at Mr. Kickham's convenience.
Kickham — He would be willing to make the presentation.
Welch — Expressed concerns that the CapCom recommendations were not presented to BOS so
the recommendations aren't reflected in the warrant Stated he's disappointed that Mr. Kelly
didn't pick up on the fact that the BOS didn't have the CapCom report and the he didn't point
out the differences. The warrant has gone out without the benefit of the CapCom report.
Kelly — The BOS has voted to put something on the warrant; that doesn't mean it is an approval
by the BOS. The BOS doesn't vote on the budget until they get the Finance Committee motions
on all the warrant articles.
Kickham — Stated he can present to the BOS in two weeks.
COMMITTEE V. P••
1. None
VI. DATE OF NEXT MEETING
Adjourned at 9:54 a.m.
Submitted by:
Terry L. Norton
Page 4of4