TRURO — The projected cost of an upgraded Dept. of Public Works (DPW) facility, which has been on the town’s agenda for at least 13 years, has climbed back up into the range of the $28 million that was rejected by voters at town meeting last May.
Paul Millett of Environmental Partners, the owner’s project manager (OPM), estimated the cost of a new building at $29.2 million at the select board’s Dec. 10 meeting. Using data from project architect Weston & Sampson, Millett reported a projected price of approximately $800 per square foot.
“No matter how you slice it and dice it here, you’re between $26 and $30 million,” Millett said.
In 2023, a self-appointed four-member “DPW Study Group” proposed an alternative plan for upgrading the facility that would cost only $15.5 million, including refurbishing two existing buildings. Its petitioned article, which never reached the town meeting floor, was not recommended by the select board by unanimous vote.
Millett addressed the study group proposal at the Dec. 10 meeting. “It’s not a $15-million job,” he said, arguing that there were serious omissions in the group’s calculations, including the higher cost of all construction on the Outer Cape, predictable inflation, and so-called soft costs, estimated by Weston & Sampson at $5.8 to $7 million.
“Soft costs are real costs,” said Millett, listing design fees, fixtures, furnishings, equipment, and contingencies tied to inflation and Truro’s rural location.
Town Manager Darrin Tangeman and DPW Director Jarrod Cabral told the select board that Anthony Garrett, a member of the study group and of the ad hoc building committee charged with overseeing design of the new facility, was revising the study group’s original plan.
Millett’s estimate did not account for potential environmental remediation costs, which remain unknown pending completion of a phase II environmental analysis at the Town Hall Hill site that was favored by many town meeting voters. Comparable assessments for other proposed sites, including 340 Route 6, have not been funded, but Millett said that environmental data from those other sites would be essential for an “apples to apples” cost comparison.
Cutting costs for the project, Millett said, would require prioritizing needs for vehicle storage, maintenance, and administration. “If you want to get this number down,” he said, “you’ve got to cut something.”
He added that “we’re ultimately at the mercy of whoever bids on this job,” citing Provincetown’s police station and Yarmouth’s DPW facility as examples of municipal construction projects that attracted few bidders.
The select board emphasized the need to get the ad hoc building committee’s design recommendations more quickly. Tangeman suggested adding that discussion to the committee’s agenda in January. Cabral said the committee could also help refine the concepts of both the study group and Weston & Sampson.
Seven Months, No Dice
At the Nov. 21 meeting of the ad hoc building committee, member Chris Lucy urged it to focus on the design work. “You guys are seven months into this, and no one has a design,” he said. “The charge of this committee is designing a building. Please put a stake in the ground and start designing.”
At the committee’s Dec. 12 meeting, Garrett reported working on a scaled-down 21,000-square-foot design incorporating “newer information,” but he did not say when it would be ready.
Garrett also led the committee through a design charrette, using a project checklist with nearly 50 items. They included location and transportation, sustainable sites, water efficiency, energy and atmosphere, materials and resources, indoor environmental quality, innovation, and regional priority.
Although the committee made some progress, it did not reach anything close to a final design consensus. Committee member Leif Hamnquist suggested distilling the feedback into clear priorities, which the committee would then make public in January.
The ad hoc committee is tasked with the design of the upgraded facility and identifying possible “cost-saving improvements.” Comments at the last two committee meetings have focused less on the facility’s location, which has been a source of ongoing controversy, and more on its cost.
“A 15-to-20-million price tag would certainly pass town meeting,” predicted Michael Forgione. “Twenty to 25 — I think you stand a 50-50 chance of this thing passing. Twenty-five to 30 — you’re dead.”
Dennis O’Brien agreed. “We’ve got to work on getting this number to a salable point for voters,” he said. “They are absolutely going to puke on $30 million. There is no way that is ever going to pass.”
In response, Lucy reiterated his point about the need to focus. “Again, it’s the OPM’s decision, it’s the select board’s decision on the money,” he said. “The numbers keep going up because the town keeps putting it off, thinking the numbers are outrageous.”
“There comes a point where the price is the price and as much as we want it to be different, that’s just the reality,” said committee co-chair Bob Higgins-Steele. “My charge is a good working DPW at the best price we can get.”
Higgins-Steele said his top three priorities were, first, the best facility; second, energy efficiency and cost-effective carbon-neutrality; and third, the overall cost of the project.
