ORDER-2022-131 : Authorizing a Bond for the replacement of the Salt Shed.

Transcript (~58 min @ 33:03)

Speakers identified by voice; unnamed voices are numbered within this recording. Auto-caption text — verify against the video.

▶ 33:26 Speaker 4: He's an oversight.

▶ 33:29 Jen Grigoraitis: We are at number five order 2022-131 authorizing a bond for the replacement of the salt shed and we are still under suspension of the rules. I believe we have several members of the administration either coming to speak or in the audience tonight.

▶ 33:56 Speaker 9: We're gonna

▶ 34:02 Speaker 9: This is exciting stuff.

▶ 34:06 Speaker 1: squeeze in

▶ 34:23 Jen Grigoraitis: show so while we get set up just for our viewing audience at home. We joining us tonight is treasure reflector Catherine armada's DPW director Elena prokos Ellis CFO slash auditor Patrick De La Russo and DPW deputy director of administration and finance Jim Troop.

▶ 35:12 Speaker 10: Okay clear. I've been

▶ 35:16 Speaker 2: All right. So thank you for hearing this order. I know

▶ 35:21 Speaker 5: we've had quite a bit of discussion to date about the salt shed. We wanted to just put together some information specific to tonight. So I'm going to run through a slide presentation. You all should have it in your in iqm2 for your viewing in case it's hard to see up here.

▶ 35:41 Speaker 6: so

▶ 35:43 Speaker 5: order 2022 want - 131 we're requesting the authorization to borrow 1.757 million to pay the cost of constructing a new salt shed, including all costs incident incidental and related there to The immortization schedule for the

▶ 36:01 Speaker 5: loan that was in the packet is projected with a

▶ 36:03 Speaker 2: 30 year term at 5% interest.

▶ 36:08 Speaker 5: So I know we all have talked a lot about why we need a new salt shed and some of you have been over to see it salt is obviously critical to our winter operations and to Public Safety the recent CIP process ranked the salt shed as the number one priority Based On A large group effort for the new CIP. And we recently were issued a demolition order. So since the last time we were here we did Circle back with both our consultants and with Building Commissioner Paul Johnson. Paul felt that the condition was when he came out for the site visit was even worse than he had expected based on the last time he had been out and he was very I guess enthusiastic about issuing the demolition order. He felt strongly that the building needs to come down as soon as possible. And I did take a couple of new pictures since the last time. I presented I guess that doesn't work.

▶ 37:08 Speaker 5: pointer Won't try to use the pointer. So the picture on the top left is a fairly recent or larger. Anyway whole in the side of the building the picture below it is a large hole in the roof that is getting larger by day by day on the right on the bottom, right? You can actually see so that's just below that same hole in the roof and you can see the roofing materials sitting on top of the salt. So this is deterioration that's happened. Just since the end of the winter we get windy days the the

▶ 37:44 Speaker 2: Metal roof is peeling off. It's coming off

▶ 37:46 Speaker 5: in sheets. And then the sheathing below. It is falling actually into the salt shed onto the salt and then the top right corner is just the same support that I had shown the last time that's almost completely off of its footing in the front of the building.

▶ 38:03 Speaker 5: So this is what commissioner Johnson saw when he came out to do the inspection and felt that you know, this is an immediate Danger.

▶ 38:13 Speaker 5: So the cost breakdown on the

▶ 38:15 Speaker 2: on the existing order

▶ 38:19 Speaker 5: Is a Construction contract of 1.543 million?

▶ 38:25 Speaker 2: And the great news about that cost is that it is 100% locked in it is a low bid in

▶ 38:29 Speaker 5: hand contractor ready to sign a contract tomorrow if we get approval and then we can proceed.

▶ 38:36 Speaker 5: Construction Administration, which would be through Western Sampson, we've budgeted at a hundred thousand dollars and then we have a contingency of 114,000. That was our contingency the same dollar value that we use the last time we were here and so we decided just to maintain that same value.

▶ 39:00 Speaker 5: We've had discussions with a lot of counselors over the last couple of weeks about a fabric option based on the fact that we know the capital costs for a fabric shed would be less. And so taking the in the packet that I had for you the last for the information meeting. We had a cost estimate from November 2021 for 1.46 million for the fabric option. Backing out from that cost the construction portion of it. I've estimated. The Construction contract would be 1.163. And the we've accounted for 50,000 in redesigning and rebidding because the design obviously that we've put out to bid is for the high arch gambrel option. And so we would have to go back and redesign. Our original design costs were a lot more than 50,000. But because we already have existing conditions plans and the front end of the specs and all that. We wouldn't have to redo all of that effort, but we would need to revise the design and rebid with the fabric shed. construction administration were estimating the same 100, 000 the construction contingency is higher because that's the amount that was in that November 2021 estimate but it's prudent for it to be higher because you need more contingency when you're at a planning level cost as opposed to a bid in hand. So that accounts for the extra percentage and then I've escalated another five percent on the total project cost to account for the time that's elapsed since that November 2021 estimate was completed and That 5% is consistent with the the bid prices that we had from a year ago to this year went up 7% So that seems to be a fair amount to escalate for a slightly shorter period of time.

▶ 40:52 Speaker 5: So comparing the features of the high arch gambrill design and the fabric shed the foundation. For the gamble is cast in place concrete whereas we would do an eight foot high block wall for the fabric. The door opening is 30 feet high by 16 feet wide. for the high arch and 20 feet tall by 16 feet wide for the fabric and I'll talk on one of the later slides a little bit more about how that impacts our operations. The footprint necessary for the high arch is smaller. It's 72 by 40 because we're allowed to we're able to get the salt higher and so we can shrink the footprint a bit. The fabric shed uses the whole area of the existing shed, which is the 100 by 40. Um because we end up with that extra space the high arch design has a 28 by 40 area in the back. That would be a covered canopy off the back that's included in the bid price that we have. Now that allows us to store roughly four vehicles undercover that are presently stored out in the open or we could opt to put all of our salting equipment there in the summer months, which is also presently stored. Out in the open. So it's a lot of additional covered area compared to what we have right. Now. The fabric shed again takes up the whole footprint of the shed we have now, so there's no extra. The total height of the building is 40 feet for the high arch gambrill and 31 feet for the fabric. The salt capacity is roughly the same the higher can get a little bit more salt, but you know my mind that's comparable 1300 versus 1200 tons. The expected life of the fabric structure is 35 years with about a 15 year lifespan on the fabric itself provided. It doesn't get damaged. So if it's if it's in place and not damaged in functioning as it should then after 15 years every 15 years it needs to be replaced. And the cost of that is roughly $10,000 in today's dollars plus the time and effort for design and construction oversight. and then the expected life of the the building we've just listed as more than 35 years didn't put an actual year on it, but the existing shed, which is You know a similar to probably not as well constructed design lasted 50 years. So, you know, I would say that the timeline would probably be longer than 35, but we didn't want to put an exact year on it.

▶ 43:36 Speaker 5: So there is based on what I just presented. There's a 224,000 difference in the total project cost and that's an estimate but the administration is coming to you tonight with a continued strong recommendation for the building option. I've said this earlier to a couple counselors, but I am as a stingy as anybody especially in my personal finances. I hate to spend extra money unless I truly think that that extra money is worthwhile. And in this case having spent the last two years becoming intimately familiar with salt sheds and salt shed designs and site constraints. I strongly believe that this is the best option for the city and worth the additional 224,000. some of the reasons being first, we have construction bids in hand as I've said that is that is worth its weight in gold right now because it's a number that's locked in and there's just so much volatility and supply chain issues that are so unpredictable right now. It avoids any further further safety risks we can begin demo as soon as we sign the contract as soon as the contractor can get in here. We can demolish what's there? We'll move our salt to Wakefield as they've agreed and then we'll demolish the shed. Um as mentioned the fabric would need to be replaced two to three times over the lifespan and at a cost of the 10,000 in today's dollars plus the city staff time and effort. We gain that extra 1120 square feet in covered storage area which results in other protection of other Investments. We save money by having vehicles kept undercover instead of out in the elements. In the new shed. So this is where the height comes in the salt can be delivered in the truck all the way into the shed. So right now the shed that we have and the fabric off option. The door opening is not large enough for that large bed dump truck

▶ 45:40 Speaker 2: to lift its gate and

▶ 45:46 Speaker 5: then or lift its it's dump and then pull out of the building while the salt is falling out of it. That's how they would They would discharge the salt into the shed. So It doesn't have the height clearance to do that. So right now the salt is dumped at the door, and we push it in. And in a couple more sides, I'll talk a little bit more about what that really entails. But operationally we much prefer being able to discharge the salt inside the shed. It also reduces lost product and the environmental impacts of that loss product that ends up in the catch basins going towards alpond from our site.

▶ 46:26 Speaker 5: The higher interior height also limits damage from Vehicles during operations. We can accommodate the solar panels as we've discussed before the payback Martha Grover ran and estimate with one of her vendors and they said a minimum of $20,000 over the lifespan of the actual return on investment on the solar panels. They were assuming that they were going to be skylights in the In the roof, so they didn't have maybe as many panels as they would have so that was a minimum. But even if it comes up, I mean, I don't think it's coming up to more than 30,000 which is not a great payback. However, it is more money in our pocket ultimately and it's also it also has the intangible benefit of helping us meet our Net Zero goals. And I know this is a city priority. It's a priority of the administration and something that we think has additional benefit Beyond just the financial

▶ 47:27 Speaker 5: There will be significant savings just from having assault shed ready for winter. If we don't have a salt shed if we have to delay and redesign and rebid we're looking at late August early September by the time we'd open bids. If we got through Demolition and ground improvements before the winter, that would probably be a realistic expectation and then we're left with no salt shed. So we have to assume that there will be a cost involved with the additional gas obviously gas prices are through the roof will be driving to either a neighboring Community or DCR. Whoever is willing to let us share their shed temporarily. We'll have to pay the contractors also for that time that they spend driving. Elsewhere and back because we pay the contractors hourly rates for their winter assistance.

▶ 48:16 Speaker 5: And then there's just the logistics of having to go somewhere outside of Melrose coordinating that with another Community or with the DCR.

▶ 48:24 Speaker 2: Tracking the usage paying the

▶ 48:26 Speaker 5: other community all the logistics that will go into it throughout the winter. That's going to be a significant amount of staff time.

▶ 48:35 Speaker 5: and I was reading the globe this weekend and this chart was was in the globe with the headline inflations at a 40-year high and the Futures uncertain and I just wanted to highlight. This is what makes me so nervous about going back out to bid because If we can't bid for another month or two because we have to redesign. We don't know where those costs are going to be. We don't know where interest rates are going to be when this project is finished. There's so many unknowns that we avoid by acting immediately that there's a cost there as well.

▶ 49:12 Speaker 5: So I ran some numbers today and frankly. I was surprised that this came out so high but the cost over the 35 year lifespan of the fabric shed just to push the salt from outside to inside. The shed is 101,000. And that's estimated based on our deliveries are 30 tons. I was told that well and I calculated based on our past years on average we use about 5,000 tons. That's even on the low side for some really bad Winters. So that equates to 166 truckloads and our operations Foreman said it takes about half an hour to push the salt in per truck for a heavy machine operator who I estimated. I assumed this was done during the daytime not during overtime. Sometimes it is over time, but I was trying to keep everything, you know, a fairly tight conservative estimate and I still came up with 101,675 just of Staff time to push the salt into the shed. So if we have the higher doorway design and we can discharge inside the shed that that would be the savings over the life of the shed.

▶ 50:24 Speaker 5: and then on top of that so we have the 224,000 cost differential if you assume that a hundred thousand is now gone from the

▶ 50:34 Speaker 5: the moving of the salt that leaves about 124,123,000. These are all the Lost costs if we go with the fabric option

▶ 50:43 Speaker 2: so money that is not actually going

▶ 50:45 Speaker 5: anywhere inflation. increased interest on the loan All that staff time to coordinate the winter as I mentioned already. The gas cost is Transport Salt farther distance this winter the contractor costs to transport salt to further distance this winter. We project that the contractors might be sort of frustrated with us when we bid a third project and might be skeptical about wanting to bid on our project and they might add a factor just for the, you know, possibly difficult client to work with Compared to the bids we have now and then there's the Personnel time for the replacement of the fabric every 15 years when that comes up that's also lost time. So it's it's very difficult to put numbers in all of these. I would love to have had a slide that had exact estimates for all of these items and

▶ 51:42 Speaker 2: a net zero number, but you

▶ 51:43 Speaker 5: take that hundred. say 123,000 you take the

▶ 51:50 Speaker 2: take 20,000 for the

▶ 51:52 Speaker 5: solar panels and you take 30,000 for replacing the fabric say three times. And then you're down 60,000 and then they're all the benefits that they come along logistically and with being able to demolish right away. So it is our strong professional opinion that the order before you as written is the best option for the city.

▶ 52:19 Speaker 5: Are our goal at this point is we really need to demolish what's there and we want to move forward as quickly as possible.

▶ 52:26 Speaker 2: We're

▶ 52:28 Speaker 5: you know, if a vote goes a different way if the fabric shed is preferred we will work with whatever option we are given, but we just wanted to come in with all of our reasoning. Sort of Consolidated into one presentation. So you all understand where our recommendation is coming from and we welcome any questions.

▶ 52:48 Jen Grigoraitis: Thank you. I know councilor gemaldine you had your hand up. Thank you.

▶ 53:01 Maya Jamaleddine: It only shows how much you believe in this project and and

▶ 53:09 Maya Jamaleddine: I appreciate that just want to clarify. So the expected life time is 35 years and we are paying 5% fees over 30 years. um, we are projecting that this would be paid off by over 30 years. Yes. That's right. So we'll have five years hopefully more. Break, you you did mention about the solar panel, which is a great news. I know we have so many City buildings that are qualified for solar panel. We are using is this kind of hopefully commitment or foreseen project that we're going to have so hopefully if this passes and we have this shed we will definitely have solar

▶ 54:08 Speaker 2: panel. Yes. The reason why a lot of our buildings don't have them where we could have them is because the roofs are too old and slated for replacement in the near term. So would make sense to put them on now, but I know the Hoover School and The Horseman school where we're working on the mspa projects to replace the roofs Martha's already Martha Grover's already talking to the solar companies about having that ready to go after those roofs are in place. So our hope is any new roof that can accommodate solar we'd like

▶ 54:34 Speaker 4: to do it. That's great.

▶ 54:37 Maya Jamaleddine: You've mentioned that we have now in order to demolish the current shot. So do we know when it's going to be demolished regardless of if this order passes or no?

▶ 54:49 Speaker 2: So the the demolition is part of the Construction contract that we have with the bitter we have right now. So if we move forward with the bid for the high arch gambrill design, then we could start the demolition as soon as we signed construction contracts, which we could sign this contract within a week if we If that passes if it doesn't pass I did explore whether it would be feasible to still award the demolition to this contractor, but it's not we wouldn't be able to do that. Legally. It's too much of a reduction in scope. So we would have to go back out to bid. So the the rebid for whatever the redesigned option is if there was a fabric option. If we opened bid say late, August early September we would start the demolition in September.

▶ 55:38 Speaker 4: so did

▶ 55:42 Maya Jamaleddine: And Mr. Johnson, did he ordered to close and no one is able to access that shed right now. So as of today, no one is a is

▶ 55:55 Speaker 2: allowed to access it. Yes, the only the only

▶ 55:58 Speaker 5: item that I would Envision anyone would be in there for as

▶ 56:00 Speaker 2: we will remove the salt as part of the demolition process and then the And then the demolition itself may require the contractor to be.

▶ 56:11 Maya Jamaleddine: In and around it and you mentioned that the demolition would be part of the whole bed. So the contractors will be responsible to demolish. We don't have to pay any extra, correct? Okay.

▶ 56:26 Maya Jamaleddine: Worst case scenario of this order did not pass. What is our options you did mention that we're going to use neighboring communities and How was any conversation have been made?

▶ 56:42 Speaker 2: So we haven't had conversation specifically about sharing. because of you know a potentially failed order but we have had conversations with both Wakefield and DCR surrounding the salt should Topic in general and I get the sense that either would be willing to work with us on a temporary basis. So we would have to bid if we didn't get any money. For either option at this point we would have to bid the demolition on its own. just to get the shed down and we'd have to identify a funding source for that and then we would just you know, we'd have to figure out as we go what we're going to do next.

▶ 57:30 Maya Jamaleddine: Um last question. We you did mention that we have a parking space for equipment. And so All our equipment will have spaces

▶ 57:44 Speaker 2: or no. We still will have some equipment housed outside for sure. Okay. Right now, I mean some of it is seasonal which equipment gets parked inside versus outside depending on the time of year, but we always do have a number of trucks that have to be parked outside. So this will just give us, you know, four more spaces than we have now, but they'll still be other equipments. So we but

▶ 58:04 Speaker 4: the Plus on the positive side that we have for extra from what we have currently exactly. Okay, okay. Okay, thank you. Thank you. I have counselor Williams followed by counselor Eccles.

▶ 58:19 Ryan Williams: Thanks very much. Um, so I wanted to follow up on the space question. Vehicles space for vehicles What kind of vehicles are we talking about? Parked inside the shed with the I'm not

▶ 58:33 Speaker 5: inside the shed. Okay on the background covered under Canada. I just want to be clear because yeah, we would never Park anything in the

▶ 58:38 Speaker 2: corrosive environment results.

▶ 58:43 Speaker 5: I assumed like a one-ton dump truck size when I figured out the four could probably fit but that wouldn't necessarily what would be what would be kept there. It would be a discussion with Joe Hobbs our operations manager to tell us what's the highest priority to put undercover. Sure. Do you

▶ 58:58 Ryan Williams: feel like That creates more efficiency circulation space for something else. Tell me about that.

▶ 59:10 Speaker 5: space and

▶ 59:16 Speaker 5: And we have a particularly tight space where the public comes through to drop their. Yard, waste and recycling. And so, you know, if we're able to move anything that ends up out in that area toward the back. That would be helpful. Yeah, but I'm not again. I don't want to speak for Joe what he whatever he thinks is the highest priority. Maybe it's our new vehicles that we're also hoping to get authorization for

▶ 59:40 Ryan Williams: tonight. I have a second question. Councilor maladene you made a great Point Solar is a big deal for this roof option and just to put a pin on it the solar produces revenue and the fabric is an expense and it's a liability because it could tear and it needs to be replaced multiple times. And the other thing is that we probably all know that there's just been a big move by the White House to invoke the defense production act for solar panels. And so there's a moment where solar technology and research and development investment is going to Skyrocket and we don't know what the future of solar will look like. But we do know that solar panels have gone from 9% efficiency in the 90s to 47% efficiency experimental nrel labs in 2020 and could go higher. We know the costs have gone down 13% by what over the last same time 25 years. So just having the capacity to add solar to a city building for me is a huge benefit can't be understated has the opportunity to bring Revenue into the city. We might be able to access Grant programs to pay for it to offset the cost and with this big Federal push on solar there's no telling what might happen in the next five or ten years. They could make our lives very very easy and really open up some Untold benefits for adding that kind of Energy generation to the building and I'd love to hear that. You're thinking about it on the other buildings, too. I can't wait to see it on the Uber school. That's it for me. Thank you. Thank you counselor Eccles.

▶ 1:01:13 Jack Eccles: Thank you madam, president or chair rather? My question is for Mr. Dalarusso. looking at a group a in the FY 22 Capital Improvement program I imagine that a lot of this stuff is going to be things. We're going to bond. Is there anything in here you see that? Would be kind of like a you know, if we go for this we might have to push this off a certain amount of time or do we have the capacity taking the public safety buildings out of it. So it's never really been in the question of something that we're going to bond. Do we have the capacity to finance all of those in the next few years?

▶ 1:01:58 Speaker 9: And candidly on the capital Improvement. We do have other items of long duration that we would consider. However, and I mentioned it before the Emphasis right now is on what's before us today? There may be opportunities for other funding who would ever know that the biopa funds available today three years ago. You wouldn't know that. We there's always an opportunity to seek alternative funding for those other projects, but when they come before you like we did with Memorial Hall. In fact, I specifically outline earlier. Autonomy into the chairs with accounts that one of the considerations was that we knew this was coming up the salt shed. We knew they had to be resolved with some kind. It's the third year in a row. It's been the CIP number up topgory. So having said that it was a determination made that if we could fund the Memorial Hall the 1.5 million from free cash, which is what we did. Then that would provide the opportunity to be here tonight to talk about this in a way that we didn't want to Cloud any judgment on behalf of the council just to treat this independently as a project and therefore we by doing what we did Memorial Hall we save significant money and interest in animal Debt Service. So I see no hesitation whatsoever with the funding of this project. If you look in back in June, I sent an illustration to the council by year or 30 year debt program and the simplest way to look at it because I like Ready's digest I don't they even printed anymore but I like it but it's really simple in this sense that we're always monitoring the direction of deaths capacity and Debt Service. In fact, I was notified today that as of June 30th 2021 just under 80% of a principles and paid off in 10 years. So we're consistently we tiring dead at a significantly High number I think stands and impose actually uses 65% as if you make that threshold you're in the top category. We're almost 80% 79.5 so The longest audience there is that I would not put any other project in the same queue as this project today because we're always always looking at what is the best way to fund the project before us as you always recall. We used 500,000 to assist us with the library HVAC. From the Apple funds that's that's you and again that minimize the cost of that project. What did that do that actually helped here. Reduce what we see Our obligation is for the library project by 500,000 over 30 years that's huge and that opened the door for another project on the capitol program. So those kind of strategies are always active. But I have learned from the past and I hope will take it into the future that work with what you know and what you have because those other opportunities are always out there and I don't want to miss out on.

▶ 1:05:30 Jack Eccles: Thank you. There. Yeah, I guess the reason I ask is just I think that You know we talked about scarcity. I think that we've we've budgeted for for 1.7. The net difference between the two designs doesn't really get us much as far as anything on this list exactly or you know, it doesn't contribute a whole lot to annual Debt Service based on you know, my back of the napkin excel math 13% So I was fine with this at 1.3 million and the first CIP. I was fine with it at 1.65. last year and I'm unfortunately fine with it at 1.7 right now because that is what it is. I don't I think that the intangibles are worth.

▶ 1:06:15 Speaker 8: You know.

▶ 1:06:17 Jack Eccles: what what the difference is as far as operational efficiency and the potential for solar so I look forward to hopefully recommending this for packet passage as is.

▶ 1:06:30 Speaker 4: Thank you madam chair. Thank you. Is that emotion or is that

▶ 1:06:32 Speaker 8: not no?

▶ 1:06:36 Jen Grigoraitis: Are there any other

▶ 1:06:39 Shawn M. MacMaster: question counselor McMaster? Thank you. Good evening. Thank you all for being here Ms. Process. You talked about the capital Improvement priority list in this ranking number one. Can you just explain so that the public understands what the methodology was for determining and rating that ranking system Yes.

▶ 1:06:58 Speaker 5: Actually I'm gonna grab my laptop.

▶ 1:07:17 Speaker 2: So we had a CIP committee that had a number of representatives from all different city departments school committee. City Council and as part of that process we first the department heads submitted projects It was open to any City Department to submit projects. I believe we had 99 projects that we considered. And then each City department head who submitted projects came in and presented those and explain and and gave their own ranking within their own projects. So, you know, if if it came in with 30 projects, they had their projects ranked. one through 30 then after that time

▶ 1:08:08 Speaker 2: The committee then took all the information we got from

▶ 1:08:10 Speaker 5: those presentations and we each came up with our own ranking.

▶ 1:08:15 Speaker 2: And then Martha Grover and Denise Gaffey took everybody's rankings and I believe the methodology they used was they took out in addition to ranking in numerical order. We also gave it a ABCDE priority categorization. They took out the outlier. They took out the high in the low from each. I can't remember if they did it from each ranking numerical ranking or from the ABCD, but I think it was from what number you ranked the project. So if salt shed was ranked, you know, one four five six and ten the one in the 10 went away and the average the remaining numbers and then they placed it in that order. So they ended up with a priority group a and the copy I have in front of me was the Final draft and so I don't have the final final in front of me, but have one two, three four five six.

▶ 1:09:18 Speaker 2: 15 projects that were ranked as priority group a

▶ 1:09:22 Speaker 5: And then one other discussion that we had within the group was there are

▶ 1:09:25 Speaker 2: other projects. There are some projects in this list that are really recurring

▶ 1:09:28 Speaker 5: processes such as

▶ 1:09:33 Speaker 2: Asbestos removal in the schools. We need to be chipping away it a little bit every year traffic coming traditionally. We've done free cash every year a little bit at a time trees, which I know councilor Garipay and I would love to see in the budget but you know

▶ 1:09:49 Speaker 5: that's traditionally been done by free cash. And that's a recurring

▶ 1:09:52 Speaker 2: cost. So we also tried to consider those a little bit separate because those are something that should have some sort of recurring funding source. But on the true Capital items we had we had these. 15 items in the end and I think the vast majority of these are either up for a free cash vote this spring or they've been submitted for consideration under arpa. And that leaves the salt shed in the public safety building as the two that really, you know, still need a funding source and a funding approval.

▶ 1:10:28 Shawn M. MacMaster: Thank you. So of the 15 projects that were categorized categorized as priority group a has the salt shed been consistently the number one priority or was there ever? Another priority that has been addressed since the CIP plan came out.

▶ 1:10:47 Speaker 2: No the CIP identifies the salt shed as

▶ 1:10:51 Speaker 5: number one. There's nothing that was ahead of it in the queue. And yeah any of the other projects that have already been funded in priority group a

▶ 1:11:00 Speaker 2: they were lower they were always lower than number one and this

▶ 1:11:01 Shawn M. MacMaster: the the committee was a multi. departmental

▶ 1:11:08 Speaker 5: Group. Yes, it is over. Yeah, we have we had a resident or two we had

▶ 1:11:15 Speaker 9: School committee. Yes Council so Department. planning department nice blend

▶ 1:11:22 Speaker 7: Everything yeah. Yeah and everyone had a had an

▶ 1:11:25 Speaker 2: equal vote. And like I

▶ 1:11:28 Speaker 5: said, the outliers were eliminated so that made it a little bit more fair so that if you had a pet project it didn't rise to the top and in

▶ 1:11:34 Speaker 2: the process took us four months.

▶ 1:11:37 Speaker 9: Yeah, but for months. Young intensive each department had an opportunity. To the chair to counselor each department had an opportunity to present their project or projects. It was very well heard and listened and provided a lot of documentation. So it was something to really be proud of to be part of I was every fortunate to be on that committee myself, but it was excellent.

▶ 1:12:02 Shawn M. MacMaster: I think that's all I have at this time. Thank you. Thank you madam chair.

▶ 1:12:06 Speaker 4: Thank you. Counselor jimaldi would like to make a motion to recommend, okay.

▶ 1:12:12 Jen Grigoraitis: We have a motion to recommend for passage made by councilor Jamal Dean seconded by councilor Williams on discussion counselors Stewart.

▶ 1:12:19 Speaker 3: And I apologize. I didn't want to.

▶ 1:12:23 Robb Stewart: Ask questions prior to that. Thank you madam chair.

▶ 1:12:29 Speaker 3: so

▶ 1:12:31 Robb Stewart: yes several questions here and thank you for being here tonight. I appreciate it. So I know that you had contingency that were different based on the the two alternative designs. Why is that?

▶ 1:12:47 Speaker 2: So the most recent cost estimate that we had. for the for the fabric option was from November 2021. And so

▶ 1:12:59 Speaker 6: the well twofold one

▶ 1:13:01 Speaker 2: is that I took that cost estimate and used it to develop the cost that we had and I added that extra five percent onto it but that cost estimate because it was a planning level estimate had a higher contingency built in the project that we have before us right now since we have bids in hand the contingency drops down. So I have about a 7% contingency on that one and a 12% on the other and that's typical in construction cost estimating that when you're when you're in planning level you have a high contingency when you get into design, it drops a little when you get into. Bidding it drops a little and then when you have a bid in hand, you're really down to that last incremental, you know, now you have a solid price and the contingency is really just for unforeseen conditions in the field. Once you're constructing whereas the contingency on a planning level estimate is obviously they're just more unknowns in that.

▶ 1:13:58 Speaker 3: Thank you for that.

▶ 1:14:00 Robb Stewart: Mr. Del Rosa Did you calculate the fully advertised? cost of the two alternatives

▶ 1:14:09 Speaker 9: Did I yes we did run both myself and Catherine I have both right here. And the Essences that the average cost for the 1 million five thirty three salt shed people compared over the years as approximately 99,672 and it's about 114,000. 6 for the traditional higher structure that

▶ 1:14:37 Speaker 3: we'll look at tonight. Do you have the the total cost to do?

▶ 1:14:43 Speaker 9: Seven right here. Yes. So if I'm looking at approximal again, it's locked me 5% that we're using. It's three million 435 600 for the model that we're looking at this evening and for the salt shed. It's just under three million. Two million nine, ninety one fifty approximately.

▶ 1:15:10 Robb Stewart: Okay, so 435,000 difference between the two over the 30 year average in

▶ 1:15:15 Speaker 9: about 15,000. Yeah, that's correctly. Okay. Thank you.

▶ 1:15:18 Robb Stewart: Thank you for that.

▶ 1:15:24 Speaker 3: so some of the

▶ 1:15:28 Robb Stewart: I'll be honest. I feel a little backed in the corner here because it really I haven't seen. the benefits of the canvas yet. All I've seen are the the negatives and it's been pretty and I know you're strongly recommending. the the building option but there's several considerations that I think are out there that have not been spoken about so for example With a with a canvas shed, I would imagine that it's easier. To change direction in other words if you had to disassemble or if you had to move locations and so forth. That's that's a much easier option. If there's a lessoning demand for salt if there's continued warming going on in 20 years from now, there's much less need impact of the winter weather based on this building that we built.

▶ 1:16:30 Robb Stewart: Did you factor any of these into consideration? I'm just just curious.

▶ 1:16:34 Speaker 2: consultant to answer the question about whether this moved because I'm not certain if that's if that's true.

▶ 1:16:55 Speaker 3: So so the answer is yes, you can move the the fabric structure. fairly labor-intensive, but it could be done. You take it down. It's built with the block wall Foundation that can also be moved so it certainly can be done but it's not something that's, you know done overnight have to be done carefully. By you know contractor with experience working with that type of structure. And stored properly or relocated and reassembled properly to help make sure that the warranty would still be valid so it could be done. It has been done but it's it's a pretty extensive process to do that. Thank you.

▶ 1:17:40 Robb Stewart: And how long when will this quote expire that? We currently have on the table? Excuse me. I'm sorry. Yeah, sure. When will the quote expire? Oh

▶ 1:17:51 Speaker 6: the bid we have.

▶ 1:17:57 Robb Stewart: June 27

▶ 1:17:59 Speaker 6: Oh 30 business days.

▶ 1:18:02 Speaker 2: I just learned something about State procurement. So do you know what date that is?

▶ 1:18:09 Robb Stewart: July 11th, okay extension, July 11th. Thank you.

▶ 1:18:17 Robb Stewart: One last question how many times a winter do we have salt actually delivered because it sound like 5,000. Tons, but we only have either 1,2,300 depending on which option we

▶ 1:18:30 Speaker 2: have. Yeah, so we never the the number of truckloads I had up there was so 166 truckloads in an average winter if we were using 5,000 tons for the winter. But we tend to get deliveries of about 300 tons at a time. So that would be that would be say 10 truckloads. So 60 16 times. I had asked our operations form in that same question earlier today, and he estimated. you know, maybe six to twelve times in a in a lighter winter I think six times is is

▶ 1:19:10 Speaker 7: important thing You were always assessing the level of salt to the inventory in the shed and you always want to have roughly two storms worth of salt there. So as the season comes winds down you may be playing that game in March that you're trying to keep that inventory low you force a purchase of salt maybe in October or November to get ready for the season, but you're always constantly assessing and what both sheds provide to us as an opportunity to stay proactive with two to three storms worth of inventory at any given time.

▶ 1:19:55 Robb Stewart: As Canada as I can be I'm very much struggling with this and the reason being is even though you say well it's only a 225 or 230,000 difference. Right and Mr. Troop. You yourself had said that we have an aging Fleet that we need new trucks. That were fifty thousand dollars over our expenses because of all of the maintenance that are required. And that 225,000 can buy us a new truck. Right and to me it's a management of capital. Right, and how do you how can you best utilize your Capital at hand? not how you can you buy the optimal solution so That's why I struggle with this. And sometimes we need to make a compromise. To find the right solution that will satisfy not just one thing and that's why I think the CIP is helpful and thank you for putting that together. But when I see a total focus and we say we just need to look at this as a separate project. That doesn't make sense to me. I think what we need to do is look at it in comparison to everything else that we need to do. And so when I see that there's another 435,000 over 30 years that can be applied in the capital sense to something else.

▶ 1:21:17 Speaker 3: That's real money.

▶ 1:21:19 Robb Stewart: That $200,000 is real money. So that's where I'm really having a hard time with why do we have to go with? The end and I'd like to hear your thoughts on this because you know, I know we have to get this done and I'm not here to say no. We don't do this. I'm here to say what's the best solution for us relative to everything else?

▶ 1:21:46 Speaker 2: I I truly believe.

▶ 1:21:52 Speaker 2: them number two on the list as of the final draft that I had was the high school elevators. We have a solution for that now. I believe number three is the the breathing apparatus for the fire department. And is that being funded through Arthur? That's being funded through our prayer. Next is Memorial Hall, which we're funding through arpa lead Water Service inventory that's being funded through arpa Fred Green fabric replacement. You just devoted to approve that for free cash public safety building upgrades we all know that's a enormous project and there's a lot of work going into that high school bathrooms. We just got approval to do the design for $150,000. again through arpa The fiber optic Network project I believe is the one that you sent to Committee in your other meeting that got a grant for 200 some thousand. Sewer pump station emergency backup generators, you're hearing that tonight for free cash from the sewer fund. Fire station HVAC is being funded through arpa. School facilities master plan. We're still working on a funding source for that. But I would imagine within the next six months. You'll be seeing us again trying to address that project new pumper truck that one I don't know about. What the is there a source. Maybe okay, so that one's being looked at switch refresh. I don't know about that one and Ashton Street water main replacement. We ended up being able to fund that through the through the operating budget in water. So that's that's what I have as as of this final draft version everything that was in group a so we have funded or identified a funding source for almost everything in group a You know, respectfully I understand exactly what Patrick is saying about.

▶ 1:23:50 Speaker 2: We need to look at each project individually and where it fits in at that moment and I agree a hundred percent, but I don't want that to imply that we're not all so planning for all the other items. I think we're in fantastic shape for funding our high priority items.

▶ 1:24:05 Speaker 3: one last question

▶ 1:24:07 Robb Stewart: A lot of these other initiatives are being funded by Arthur. Can we fund a portion of this through our

▶ 1:24:18 Speaker 2: Sorry for the musical chairs.

▶ 1:24:21 Robb Stewart: And and why or why not?

▶ 1:24:27 Speaker 9: Good evening. I did check what the consultant obviously before I came here tonight. Two things one is if we had already issued debt for this obligation and that would be off the table. If it's if it's a consideration for using Opera funds we would have to be able to clearly identify what aspects of the project are APA in which is dead. So it's quite different than and I'll put in context if you take a look at the library project that was a significantly large project. We could identify clearly the HVAC component cost. It was clearly identify what that cost is and that was with the Opera came in to address that we're talking about assault shed. And I'm not sure and again, I don't have does me and I have a year, so no answer to that how it being what it is the structure where there is really no. No office per say in there. There's no way you know, you don't have those same components as you wouldn't in the library obviously, but I'm not sure how you would break down. the different aspects of the project so that we'd have a certain amount of portion for debt and a certain portion not dead very difficult. I would think to do that because of the nature of the structure. But again, that would be the way we would have to to frame it or to structure it.

▶ 1:25:57 Robb Stewart: So isn't there a whole piece of deconet decontamination work that's different distinct from the actual blood. That's

▶ 1:26:03 Speaker 9: why I'm just bringing up this evening. I literally I just got the response before I came down today from the consultant on the asked on just like that. Could we break it down? Could we use our And at what point could you use Opera? So again item? I'm not capable of breaking down that project in that sense. I don't have that ability. But I mean, that's not that that would be something we'd have to find out.

▶ 1:26:27 Speaker 2: I think to add to that the construction cost would be very challenging to break down because it's bid is a lump sum with they're a handful of items that are unit costs. But the vast majority of the bid is a lump sum cost. So the only piece that's really a separate entity with a separate price is construction Administration. Which we have estimated at 100,000. I mean that's clearly separate because it's a contract with Western Sampson not a contract with the low bidder but aside from that everything is sort of grouped in when the when the contractor first Begins the project that one of the first submittals that required to give us as a schedule of values and that's where they take the whole lump sum of the construction and they tell us you know, this Milestone is this amount of money in this master is that amount of money and then that's how they submit their pay requisitions for payment. But you know, it's not bid that way that's that's a step that happens after we sign a contract.

▶ 1:27:28 Speaker 3: Yeah.

▶ 1:27:32 Speaker 3: so

▶ 1:27:34 Robb Stewart: Madam chair I would be comfortable if this number were at for example 1.3 and then it was Bridge with our funding. I'm not so comfortable at the full one seven. And so I just I don't want this to die in in committee. So I just want to let you know that that's what I'm thinking right now. Thank you

▶ 1:27:55 Jen Grigoraitis: counselor Stewart. So just to regroup we have a motion before us with a second for recommendation for passage at one point seven. So Is there anyone else who wants to discuss that or and/or help?

▶ 1:28:09 Mark Garipay: Yeah, just to console Stewart's point, you know, the 400,000 over 30 years. We're doing an unbelievable job. getting you know eliminating the priority group a projects. But as we eliminate them priority now comes priority a so it is real money. We have 75 other projects that we could be used in this additional additional cost.

▶ 1:28:39 Mark Garipay: I we've had many conversations on this you everyone you know where I stand. 1.7. I struggle with for a building that's We're investing in that. Is housing salt which is a necessity. It's a necessity, but it's not housing people. We have a lot of infrastructure issues in our buildings. So I took a pro I too could maybe do something a little bit less than Then then 1.7 but I can't support this. I didn't support that one five. I'm I can't support that one seven, but

▶ 1:29:21 Jen Grigoraitis: Thank you any other counselors wishing to speak?

▶ 1:29:27 Jen Grigoraitis: No, okay, so we are moving forward with a call of the role on 1.7. So we have a motion made by counselor jimaldean seconded by councilor Williams to recommend for passage Mr. Clerk. Can you please call the roll?

▶ 1:29:41 Speaker 1: Council McMaster

▶ 1:29:45 Speaker 7: Yes. Counselor Eccles, yes.

▶ 1:29:51 Speaker 11: Council gripe no

▶ 1:29:55 Speaker 1: Counselor jamaladin, yes. Tells their Stewart.

▶ 1:30:01 Speaker 3: No.

▶ 1:30:04 Speaker 1: Council Carm Shady. Yes.

▶ 1:30:07 Speaker 7: Counselor Williams. Yes.

▶ 1:30:09 Speaker 1: President Sonoma. Yes. And chair goodness. Yes. We have 70s two nodes seven. Yes

▶ 1:30:16 Jen Grigoraitis: two knows so that will be recommended for passage to the full Council. I just as a point of information will remind everyone that we are missing two of our colleagues tonight and that in a full Council and appropriation requires eight votes, so to be continued on next week, so thank you all for your presentation on that. We will move right along to thank you.