Consultants present five options to replace Acton DPW building; finance committee raises cost and program questions

Arrow Street Consultants presented five alternatives on Oct. 15 to address the Town of Acton’s deteriorating Department of Public Works (DPW) facility and recommended a phased approach (option 4B) as the most promising, while members of the Acton Finance Committee pressed for more operational data and life-cycle cost analysis before the town considers funding.

The presentation, introduced by Assistant Town Manager Tom Begian, summarized a peer review of prior designs and feasibility work dating back to 2013 and delivered five options ranging from renovating the existing building to partial demolition plus new construction. “We’ve developed 5 options and they’re in sort of order of magnitude of cost and, scope,” Andrea Perue of Arrow Street Consultants said during the presentation.

Why it matters: Town Meeting previously approved a $150,000 appropriation for a study of the DPW building; the Finance Committee is weighing whether any proposed capital ask should return to voters. Committee members repeatedly said cost and demonstrable operational need would determine voter support, and they flagged gaps in the current analysis that they want resolved before any formal funding recommendation.

What the consultants presented Arrow Street said it reviewed the Weston & Sampson 40% design-development (40% DD) documents, past feasibility reports and interviewed town staff, the DPW building committee and the original designer and OPM. The five alternatives were described as: - “VEDD set” (value-engineered 40% DD): a down-sized version of the Weston & Sampson 40% DD program (retaining full fleet storage for 31 winter vehicles but reducing office/support area and simplifying the footprint); - Option 2: renovate the existing building (envelope and systems upgrades, all-electric HVAC using air-source heat pumps) to extend service life but not meet all program goals; - Option 3: add a new fleet-storage building attached to half of a demolished existing building (programmatically workable but with substantial structural complexity); - Option 4A: renovate the existing building for offices/shops and build a separate new fleet storage building (helps buffer neighborhood impacts); - Option 4B: renovate the existing building for fleet storage and construct a new building for staff, shops and maintenance (consultants said 4B “has the most promise”).

Costs, scoring and energy Arrow Street presented broad order-of-magnitude costs and a qualitative scoring matrix. The consultants reported that the Weston & Sampson 40% DD baseline escalated to about $39 million for a fair comparison. The lowest-cost alternative (option 2, renovate existing) was presented at roughly $11 million. Several intermediate new-construction/partial-renovation alternatives clustered in the high-$20 million to mid-$30 million range (consultants cited figures roughly $28.3M, $29.7M, $33.8M and $34.4M for the other options).

The team used a scoring rubric (higher = better) across categories including project cost, program fit, site issues, buffering/noise, and energy performance. Scores shown in the presentation included: the 40% DD baseline at 65, option 2 at 20, option 1 at 62, option 4A at 58 and option 4B at 56. Arrow Street noted these scores were sensitive to weighting and could change if the committee prioritizes different factors.

On energy, Arrow Street analyzed Energy Use Index (EUI) benchmarks (not a full energy model). They recommended all-electric, air-source heat-pump HVAC systems. The consultants said most new-build options would achieve the lowest EUI; option 4A, which retains the most high-energy-usage renovated spaces, could use slightly more energy than the existing building, while 4B allows the highest-energy spaces to be new construction and therefore be optimized.

Operational and program issues flagged by the finance committee Finance Committee members and others asked for additional operational analysis before committing to a specific project or funding ask: - Staffing/workspace: committee members asked for a staff work-study (how many desks/cubicles are needed, hybrid schedules, shared/hotel workstations) and noted consultants had already trimmed admin area from the Weston & Sampson tabulation (baseline admin/support in the 40% DD was ~4,600 sq. ft.; Arrow Street’s reduced scheme shows about 3,700 sq. ft.). - Fleet sizing and parking: Arrow Street and the committee affirmed a listed winter fleet of 31 vehicles drives fleet-storage area. Committee members asked for evidence about redundancy, seasonality and whether all vehicles need inside storage; consultants recommended diagonal parking as operationally quickest in storm response. - Life expectancy and phasing: consultants said the current building is generally estimated to have a 10–15 year remaining useful life if not fully rebuilt; typical new public buildings target a 50-year design life. Arrow Street presented phasing options (build new storage first and later replace the old building, or renovate now) and noted structural constraints (block bearing walls) make large new openings expensive and can raise renovation costs. - Lifecycle and operating costs: the consultants did not perform a full lifecycle-cost or O&M-cost comparison in this study but offered this as the next step. They also noted that several options increase square footage and therefore utility costs even with more efficient systems; HVAC equipment life was estimated at about 15–20 years. - Safety, health and code compliance: Arrow Street said all five options could be designed to meet building codes and address indoor-air-quality and separation concerns (new ventilation systems, envelope repairs and positive-pressure strategies for offices were discussed).

Requests and next steps Finance Committee members urged the town to obtain additional, specific data before any formal capital request: a staff work-study, a validated vehicle inventory with redundancy and seasonal storage needs, a life-cycle cost analysis (utility and O&M comparisons and break-even points), and clarification of program choices such as the number of mechanical bays and the stated goal of 40 parking spaces for the facility.

Arrow Street said it had stayed within the $150,000 Town Meeting appropriation for the peer-review study and offered a proposal to the town to perform the next-step analyses (life-cycle costing and operations comparisons).

Votes at a glance - Motion to adjourn (Finance Committee): passed by voice vote at the end of the meeting. (Mover and seconder not recorded on the transcript.)

What was not decided There was no formal vote in this meeting to select a preferred design or to place a funding request before Town Meeting. The consultants recommended option 4B as the most promising balance of program, cost and energy performance, but the Finance Committee and other speakers requested further operational validation and lifecycle costing before the town proceeds to a funding decision or a recommendation to the Select Board.

Ending Arrow Street and town staff said they will continue to refine options and that the Select Board and DPW Building Committee will review the alternatives in upcoming meetings. Committee members signaled the need to present clearer, data-backed scenarios to voters if the town eventually asks for capital funding.