Office project likely to start next spring

Construction of Waterbury’s new municipal complex at 28 N. Main St. should get underway next spring.

Initially, town officials had hoped to start work this fall, but the Waterbury Select Board opted Monday night for a spring start, around April 1, allowing lingering project details to be ironed out.

One of those details involves making sure all conditions are met under a $1 million community development block grant.

The grant sets rolling deadlines, one of which was June 30, and Barbara Farr, Waterbury’s long-term community recovery director, told the board that all conditions were “more or less” met by that deadline.

But more issues need to be worked out, she said, particularly involving environmental review of the land where the complex will be built.

The project will deliver new municipal offices and an expanded public library. The Waterbury Historical Society will also be given a home inside what’s not the library; that space will be renovated.

The former municipal offices at 51 S. Main St. were flooded during Tropical Storm Irene in August 2011 and have been vacant ever since. Temporary municipal offices have been located above the Main Street Fire Station.

So far, two phases of environmental testing have been completed at 28 N. Main St. Farr said the testing found above-normal levels of lead in one test pit, and high levels of coal ash in another.

Those findings are by no means deal-breakers, but require extra corrective work.

The affected area is near houses along Winooski Street.

It appears the spot was once a trash dump, and that’s the reason for the lead and coal ash. Issues like this are not uncommon for locations like this one — the historic Dr. Henry Janes house, which is now the Waterbury Public Library — that have been in use since the 1800s.

Engineers who did the testing suggest two options for fixing the problem, Farr told the board.

“One option is to dig about 4 cubic yards of soil out of the area because it has a higher-than-acceptable level of lead in the one corner,” she said. Four cubic yards is about half a dump-truck load.

In all, the report said it would cost $5,936 for further environmental work, including digging up the tainted soil and disposing of it properly.

That cost is already accounted for in the $4,984,372 project cost; no additional money is needed.

“The other option is to pave over it and cap it off, basically make it a parking lot,” Farr said. If the surface is sealed, so water can’t wash the pollutants to different locations, the problem is solved.

That option is less expensive, at $3,571.

But project architect Ashar Nelson of Vermont Integrated Architecture said capping doesn’t make sense in terms of the project layout.

“Capping would push the project closer to residents’ property line,” he said, and using the paved area for parking would require redesigning part of the project.

“Excavating makes the most sense in terms of where we’re going with the project,” he said.

The board sided with Nelson and said excavating and removing the tainted dirt is the way to go.

Farr said she’ll work with the engineer to design a fix-up plan for the board to consider.

The environmental review also showed that part of the foundation for the town’s new library and shared meeting space is inside the 100-year floodplain.

That invokes an eight-step decision-making process to comply with the floodplain management requirements laid out by the

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Municipal Manager Bill Shepeluk said the project plans do not necessarily need to be changed.

“We’re not going to have to elevate the building or build a floodwall or anything like that, but we will have to go through the process to show compliance,” he said.

Select board member Karen Miller asked how the multi-step process will affect the construction schedule.

“That’s one of the key questions for (the board) tonight,” Farr said. “We’ve been going under the assumption all along that we’re going to start Oct. 1, with another potential start date of April 1. I think we’re at the point that, because of all these little pieces and parts we still have, the recommendation would be to go with an April 1 start date.”

Shepeluk said he had been very close to recommending the start date be pushed back until spring, even before the new issues came to light.

“We still need to dot some I’s and cross some T’s in the environmental review and then we can hire a construction manager,” he said.

Select board member Don Schneider said he’s disappointed about the delay and hopes it won’t drive up construction bids.

The companies that have already filed bids to manage the construction have been notified about the delay, and the reasons for it, Farr said.

“It will also give us more time to get all the details together and get permits lined up,” she said.

Miller asked whether, if the board agreed to an April 1 start date, it would still be possible to hire a construction manager sooner, rather than later, so bids can be sought for a general contractor who would actually do the work.

Yes, Farr said, as soon as all environmental work is completed and the town has a signed agreement for the grant, saying all the conditions have been met.

Shepeluk also told the board that changing the start date to April 1 doesn’t mean it can’t be changed again.

“The decision is not set in stone. If for some reason a week and half from now we find out we cleared all the hurdles and permitting isn’t going to be an issue, we can change” the date again, he said.

Shepeluk also said the April 1 start date is fairer to the architects and other people working on the project “so that they may tackle things in a little bit different order, knowing that there’s going to be a spring start.”

Andrea Nelson, also a project architect with Vermont Integrated Architecture, agreed.

“Haste can also cost more,” she said and having more time means there’s a better opportunity to find more cost-effective and efficient building options that can save “a lot more money down the road.”