CFAL Pricetag Could Jump $2.6M; Were Boards Kept In The Dark?

CHATHAM – The select board and council on aging leadership expressed shock and exasperation Tuesday at the news that the planned renovation of the Center for Active Living appears to be on track to be as much as $2.6 million over budget. They also raised serious concerns that the project team appeared to be aware of the problem for several weeks before alerting them.

 After debating the topic for two hours in a special session Tuesday, the select board accepted the recommendation of town staff to allow the design team to keep preparing plans in anticipation of putting the project out to bid by Nov. 14, even though those bids could come in as much as $2.6 million over the $5 million appropriated for the project at town meeting. If that happens, and depending on the size of the overage, the select board may opt to pull the plug on the project altogether.

 Owners Project Manager Rick Pomroy said the $5 million warrant article was based on a schematic design, and when plans began to firm up, a new cost estimate was received in August and “it was much higher than was originally anticipated.” The project design team immediately began reviewing the project to identify the source of the cost overrun and started scaling back the project in an effort to bring it back on budget. Pomroy said cost estimators are struggling to predict construction costs in recent months.

 “With the looming tariffs, they never really know where the numbers may fall,” he said. Though there are signs that construction prices may be stabilizing, the only way to really know what the project will cost is to put it out to bid, Pomroy said.

 The project team made the decision to stop the planned move of the Center for Active Living out of its quarters at 193 Stony Hill Rd. to temporary accommodations at the community center, which was expected to take place this week. The CFAL presented that temporary relocation plan to seniors at a luncheon on Sept. 8, but Pomroy said the project team halted that effort.

 “It was a very, very difficult recommendation to make,” but the team felt the CFAL should not move out until it was clear that the project would be going forward, he said.

 The renovation of the CFAL has been scaled back in a number of ways that should not meaningfully impact service delivery, Pomroy said. Architect Kurt Raber said plans were scrapped to completely gut the first floor office space in order to reconfigure offices, and plans to remove columns from the basement adult day program rooms and exercise room were scaled back, since removing those columns would have required structural work that was “dramatic and pricey.” Plans remain in place to remove the most troublesome column from the first floor dining room. Raber said that he hopes changes to the design will trim about $1.4 million from the core construction costs, which will in turn reduce some of the project’s “soft costs” including contingencies. Ideally, the cuts will get the project back on budget, Raber said.

 The select board was given two options: to proceed with project planning and wait to have firm bid numbers in hand before deciding whether to continue with the project, or to halt all work until a revised cost estimate is available, likely at the end of October. Staff recommended the first option, saying it would help keep the project moving ahead and would reduce the risk of potential additional cost escalations because of the uncertain construction market. If the price is higher, the select board could consider calling a special town meeting for an additional appropriation, they said.

 “This is not the conversation we wanted to be having,” board member Cory Metters said. “This has been a very, very long road, this project,” he said. Metters said he wonders whether a whittled-down project would still be worth doing. “This is not going to be an easy conversation,” he said. Metters also wondered why the $2.6 million figure was not included in the board’s meeting packet on Tuesday.

 Board Chair Dean Nicastro said omitting that number was his decision. The figure is very much subject to change, he said. “I didn’t want to alarm the public,” he noted. Nicastro said he was made aware of the potential project shortfall on Sept. 12.

 Board member Stuart Smith questioned the wisdom of sinking more money into an aging building that was never designed as a senior center. 

 “At what point do you drive a bulldozer through this building and you start over?” he asked. Proposals to build a new CFAL failed at several town meetings, prompting the compromise plan to renovate the existing facility.

 “It’s clear from town meeting that they don’t want a brand new building,” Nicastro said. 

 COA board Chair Pat Burke decried the lack of information provided to her board, “in a town where transparency is the goal.” She said the project could pose an all-too-familiar problem. “As a taxpayer, I find the pattern of asking for a sum of money at town meeting, and then returning and saying that this isn’t enough, disturbing,” she said. 

 “I am really sad, really disappointed and really discouraged,” said COA board member Ann Ryan. She opposed construction of a new senior center at 1610 Main St. but embraced the renovation project because it was sold to voters as having sufficient financial contingencies to keep it within budget. “I felt 100 percent confident voting for this because I thought everybody had done their homework and everything had been disclosed. And it seems that may not be the case,” Ryan said.

 The project team’s report estimates that, by continuing to develop the project and evaluating actual bid numbers, a contract could be awarded by Jan. 7, with eight months of construction starting shortly thereafter. The renovated CFAL would be ready for occupancy by Sept. 15, 2026, the report reads.

 “We’re fooling ourselves if we really think that can be achieved,” COA board member Nancy Fields said. “Like everything else, the numbers keep changing.”

 Resident Judy Patterson blamed Town Manager Jill Goldsmith for not being transparent about the project, and said select board members are responsible for not holding her accountable.

 “Transparency? You all blew it,” said Robin Zibrat, president of the Friends of the Council on Aging. Zibrat said she tried to get updates from the project team without success. “It was such a hush-hush discussion with everyone,” she said.

 “Obviously we have a communication problem here,” Smith said, noting that the COA board and the Friends were not kept apprised. “They are the customers. They are the end users, and we need to create a policy or whatever that will correct that problem.” Smith suggested that the board might want to bring the proposal back to an annual town meeting for reconsideration.

 “I want to say something about this,” Nicastro said. “No one was more aggressive in pushing this than me, and I don’t regret that one damn bit,” he said. “I’ve been working at this for eight, nine, 10 years, and this is it for me,” he added, his voice rising. If the bids come back significantly higher, “that’s the end of the project. And people will have to continue in this building until the state steps in and says, you can’t run a senior center there because the building isn’t competent for it. And our seniors will have to go to Harwich or Brewster or Orleans or Dennis for services,” he said. Nicastro said he disagrees with any suggestion that the select board has done something wrong in this project.

 The board voted unanimously to adopt Option 1, proceeding with the completion of the bid documents at the same time the independent cost estimate is being carried out.

 “I think it’s foolish to stop these guys in their tracks,” Dykens said.