David C. wrote: > “cutting $2.3M out of the project would require a complete redesign > (estimated cost $1.5M to $2.0M)” > > This stretches the bounds of plausibility. Anyone familiar with > construction projects knows that cost-cutting trade-offs are often > necessary, and rarely do they require paying full architectural fees all > over again. > There's not a smooth linear slider where we can just "uncheck boxes" and costs come down.
Sometimes, you can't materially reduce scope or cut costs without triggering a redesign. For example, if you need to materially reduce costs, that may trigger a footprint reduction, which may trigger a room reduction, which triggers a layout change, which triggers a roof change, etc. If it's already highly constrained (as this project is), you may need to look at a couple of conceptual designs before committing to a new redesign, review with all the stakeholders, renegotiate tradeoffs, etc. And, because of the municipal process, we need to generate a new full set of design documents so that bidders have enough detail to submit new bids. The CCBC-provided redesign cost estimate may be "conservative", but it's not surprising if it's close to a design-from-scratch cost since a redesign means going back to nearly the beginning. “and a delayed timeline, resulting in further escalated costs ($1.5M to > $2.0M)” > > Have they never heard of the time value of money? I’d rather see my taxes > levied two years from now than today. Delaying the project means capital > remains available for more productive uses. Even if the funds are already > allocated, they would be earning interest—likely 4–5%. Any escalation > estimate should be offset by that. Moreover, our record for predicting > escalation is weak at best. We should avoid baseless speculation. > To clarify: the majority of funds (~$16m) would be bonded, and that would happen *after* we are "go flight!" with an accepted bid, etc. At that point, we're paying interest on those funds and MA anti-arbitrage laws prevent us from earning more interest/return than we're paying on float. Generally, if bonding is involved, we can't arbitrage away cost escalations in any meaningful way. Do residents prefer to pay escalated costs in ~2 years *vs* current costs, as you suggest? Maybe; I'd be very surprised. That's why we vote. One if-you-think-community-centers-are-expensive-try-two-weddings resident's view, -andy
-- The LincolnTalk mailing list. To post, send mail to [email protected]. Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/. Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
