Facilities department leaders told the Finance Commission on March 20 that the town’s building portfolio faces mounting maintenance costs driven by higher natural‑gas delivery charges, aging roofs at several schools and new equipment at the district’s largest upcoming project.

The department said it now operates as a townwide facilities group after a five‑year transition from a buildings‑and‑grounds structure centered on the schools. Staff described a department of roughly 52.5 full‑time equivalent positions made up primarily of custodians, eight maintenance tradespeople (including an electrician, plumber and carpenter) and unlicensed craftspeople who support them. The department reported that about 80–82% of incoming work orders are for schools and roughly 18–20% are for other town buildings.

Why it matters: Facilities leaders told the commission that several buildings are near the end of their useful life for major systems and envelopes, and that unpredictable failures — a hot‑water tank and steam‑system parts cited in recent months — are creating large, unplanned bills. The commission is evaluating whether to fund a districtwide HVAC study and set aside capital for roof replacement, building envelope repairs and other deferred maintenance.

Key details and requests

- New school size and staffing: staff said the new Coakley building will be about 88,000 square feet (the existing building is about 27,000 square feet). To staff it they plan to add two custodians (from existing funds) and one half‑time position to be paid partly by food services. The department expects additional ongoing maintenance and preventive‑maintenance needs for the building’s modern heat‑pump and rooftop‑unit systems.

- HVAC mechanic: facilities staff recommended hiring a part‑time or three‑day‑a‑week HVAC mechanic so the town can perform more work in‑house and limit outside contractor costs; they said many electrical, plumbing and general repairs are already handled internally and that adding an HVAC mechanic would reduce recurring contractor spending.

- Roofs and asbestos testing: several school roofs were reported as more than 25 years old and requiring near‑term replacement. Staff gave per‑square‑foot ballparks of $40–$50/ft for roof work and estimated multi‑million‑dollar replacement costs for large school roofs (examples given: roughly $2.0 million and $2.3 million for two school roof projects), noting that asbestos and prior layered installations in older roofs can increase removal and replacement costs.

- Recent unplanned costs: staff described recent failures that required large emergency purchases and crane/rigging work — an ~800‑gallon hot‑water storage tank replacement at the high school (tank cost and installation cited in the tens of thousands) and a steam‑system component replacement at Town Hall with an estimated total project cost in the tens of thousands.

- Natural gas: department staff said they have seen roughly a 50% increase in monthly natural‑gas bills over the last two months, and that a recent three‑month billing catch‑up produced an unexpectedly large payment. Finance staff are negotiating supply contracts on the town’s behalf and watching market timing to lock in savings.

- Maintenance and preventive contracts: the facilities team described an ongoing contract to provide HVAC troubleshooting and monitoring through 2027; staff said the contract vendor can identify failing units and point local mechanics to specific problem units to reduce diagnostic time.

Study request and budget implications

Facilities leaders said they are requesting funding for an HVAC and facilities study (the department mentioned $250,000 as a planning figure) that would analyze HVAC, electrical and related infrastructure across all town buildings (schools, civic center, town hall, library, police and fire facilities). The department and commissioners discussed whether to limit the study to elementary schools or pursue a townwide scope; the commission and staff expressed a preference for a comprehensive approach to allow prioritization of capital planning.

Commissioners and staff noted capital‑budget timing issues: roof projects and large mechanical work likely require consideration on the next capital plan and may need special town meeting approval if costs exceed the operating/maintenance budget.

Meeting context and next steps

Facilities staff and the commission agreed to fold the facilities requests into the FY26 operating and capital planning process. Commissioners asked for one year of operating experience with the new school so the town can better project ongoing maintenance and energy costs. The commission discussed using free‑cash and capital reserves to seed studies or early repairs, while reserving larger replacement work for the capital plan or a future town meeting vote.

Ending

No formal spending vote was taken on March 20. The facilities presentation will be considered in the commission’s upcoming budget vote scheduled for the next meeting; staff will supply updated encumbrance and contract figures and provide more detailed estimates for study scope and roof replacement costs.