Published in the March 9, 2017 edition
NORTH READING – Town officials expressed dismay at Monday night’s selectmen’s meeting about the rising costs of installing restrooms at Arthur Kenney Field – with Town Meeting voters set to consider a warrant article on the project just days from now.
Selectmen were informed Monday night that the estimated cost of building a 624 square foot restroom facility at the field had risen from $565,741 on Jan. 31 to $652,031 on March 2. Another $26,768 would go toward installing a concrete pad to be used as the footprint for a future concessions stand, a step that would apparently help to considerably hold down the future cost of building the stand. The cost increase reflected a $40,000 increase in the estimate for the installed modular building and another $57,000 for site work and $12,000 for the foundation. The estimated cost of utilities also reportedly went down by $10,000. There was also a general consensus that assuming the project goes out to bid, it will likely come back with lower figures.
Whatever the final cost of the project, Town Administrator Mike Gilleberto has recommended that $450,000 from the town’s free cash fund be used to help fund it, with the remainder to be borrowed.
As of Tuesday afternoon, it remained uncertain what exact options voters in Monday evening’s special Town Meeting will be discussing. Selectman Steven O’Leary, the liaison to the Athletic Facilities Committee, noted that an initial of $50,000 for the design phase of the project had largely been spent, without having produced a design yet that can specifically go out to bid. He suggested that one option would be to ask Town Meeting for additional funds to handle architectural and design services, followed by a warrant article at the regular June Town Meeting seeking funds for the actual construction costs. “It’s somewhat of a quandary,” said O’Leary. Members of the town’s finance committee were on hand and also expressed dismay at the rising cost.
Selectman Mike Prisco did point out that from a construction standpoint, restroom fixtures are actually very expensive to install. The facility would reportedly have about 18 stalls. “The long we wait and kick this can down the road, the more that number will keep rising,” he warned, adding that for somewhat more than $200,000 borrowed at this point, the town could “put this thing to bed.” O’Leary later pointed out that “this is a structure that’s going to serve the community for several generations to come,” and he noted that if construction funds are approved at the June Town Meeting, the facility could still end up being completed during the coming building season.
The state has required the town to eventually install restrooms at the field. However, even if the project is delayed somewhat, there is apparently little risk of sanctions from the state, as long as the town can demonstrate that the project, in a general sense, continues to move forward. “They want to see us making progress, more than anything else,” said Gilleberto.
Selectman Jeffrey Yull was dismayed by the cost estimate as well, recalling how a past estimate in the fall had come in closer to $435,000. He suggested that a far less expensive option would be to simply modify the existing structure at the field and install restrooms there. School officials have already rejected this option as being unworkable however, and O’Leary noted that a good part of that building is also used for storage.
Yull also maintained that when factoring in an additional $150,000 or so for the eventual cost of the snack shack, the total cost for the facility at the field could exceed $800,000. He later said that if the concrete pad is installed, the town is essentially committing to build the snack shack at some point in the future, although Chairman Robert Mauceri raised the possibility that the snack shack could wind up being built with private funds. He added that the snack shack component was not on Monday’s warrant article either way. Prisco defended the idea of investing in future snack shack infrastructure, saying “it would be foolish of us to just delete that from the project.”
Selectman Kathryn Manupelli backed the idea of a cap on the cost of the project, noting that the cost of the project had shot up “in the blink of an eye.” She also cited the “wildly varying figures” the cost estimates have produced so far.
Mauceri also expressed concern that $50,000 had been spent without producing something ready for bid, although he also acknowledged the long term nature of the project. He also backed the idea of seeking funding Monday night to complete the design, and then tackling the rest of the funding in June. O’Leary advised that the most cost effective strategy at this point would likely be to get the project out to bid so that more accurate cost figures can be determined.
