Acton DPW building team trims scope, marks wash bay and geothermal as priorities ahead of March cost estimates

The Department of Public Works Building Committee on Feb. 12 reviewed changes to the design and cost estimate for a proposed Public Works facility in Acton and discussed next steps, including a March pricing submission and a March 28 estimate reconciliation.

John, a project presenter, told the committee the schematic-design baseline showed a construction cost of $37,946,168 and a total project cost of $46,960,456, and said the design team and town staff have identified about $4,000,000 in building-construction reductions and another $3,500,000 in items that could be offered as bid alternates. "The total project cost is $46,960,456," John said. He said the team had also identified roughly $735,000 of work that could be performed by town forces rather than the general contractor.

Those changes, the presenter said, amount to approximately an 8% reduction in the building’s square footage — roughly 3,800 square feet — achieved by narrowing the vehicle-storage bay by about 5 feet, tightening some office and corridor space and eliminating a corridor between shops and the vehicle maintenance area. "We've identified almost $4,000,000 of savings that we think can be made without causing operational concerns," John said.

Why it matters: The committee is preparing to send a pricing package to cost estimators on March 5 and expects two independent estimates back for reconciliation by March 26–28. The reconciled estimate will inform whether the town can keep the project as presented, accept bid alternates, or pursue other financing options ahead of town election and town meeting votes.

Key changes and priorities The design team listed several categories of reductions and bid alternates. The wash bay — an expensive, stainless-steel-finished portion of the project that John said is about 1,900 square feet — is the top bid alternate. The team described a plan to include wash-bay infrastructure that could be completed later if necessary, and discussed splitting that alternate into a Part A (shell) and Part B (equipment and finish) so the shell could be built now and equipment added later.

Committee members and DPW staff raised operational and environmental concerns tied to the wash-bay decision. One committee member warned washing vehicles in an uncontained area could accelerate corrosion and shorten equipment life. A DPW representative, Corey, confirmed the plan would allow vehicle washing in the vehicle storage area in the short term but said the shell-for-later approach would permit adding containment and commercial wash equipment later if bid pricing allowed.

Energy systems and other technical changes The project team also reduced the planned number of ground-source geothermal wells from 40 to 30. A committee member who follows life-cycle cost modeling said that with the reduction the lifetime-cost advantage over natural gas narrowed and that the financial delta had become small. Several members expressed continued support for geothermal on environmental grounds; others noted the finance committee has differing views.

Schedule and next steps John said the pricing package will be delivered to estimators on March 5 and two independent cost estimates will be returned and reconciled around March 26–28, with the reconciled estimate delivered to the town thereafter. He added that if the project proceeds to final design there will be another estimate at roughly the 75% design stage later in the summer.

Financing and political context Committee members and several participants discussed the political challenge of winning both a town election and a town meeting vote for funding. A Finance Committee member, Greg, said he expects continued opposition in part because some members still view the project’s scope as too large; he called an override in the current climate "fraught with risk." Other committee members said that carefully prioritized bid alternates and potential future capital appropriations could allow the town to proceed without a single large vote to add omitted items.

Votes at a glance — minutes and adjournment The committee approved two sets of minutes and adjourned. The transcript records the motions as moved, seconded and carried without recorded opposition: the Dec. 12 minutes were accepted unanimously; the Jan. 29 minutes were accepted unanimously; the meeting was then moved to adjourn and the motion carried. (Motions and names of movers/seconders were not specified in the transcript.)

What the committee asked staff to do Committee members and the project team agreed to prioritize bid alternates in order so that highest-priority alternates — the wash-bay shell, certain sound-barrier elements and canopy options for salt-storage/seasonal equipment — would be the first to be added back if bids and budgets allow. The team will deliver the pricing package to estimators on March 5, receive two estimates, reconcile them, and present the reconciled estimate to the town by late March.

Community input A resident, Eric Heals of 17 Forest Road, used public comment to press for sidewalks on Forest Road for pedestrian safety; he said his online petition had 398 supporters and that he intended to raise the issue at a future Select Board meeting. The committee did not take formal action on that request at this meeting.

Closing note Committee members said they will continue public outreach and presentations to local groups before the town election and town meeting and tentatively scheduled a check-in meeting for early April to review updates and any new information from cost estimators.