Yes, sir. >> You go first. >> Okay. Um, good evening. Uh, I'd like to call this uh combined meeting of the finance committee and select board to order. It's now uh
December 8th, 2025, 700 p.m. Observing. We have a quorum on the select board here. uh and we're ready to begin for >> seeing a presence of a quorum for the
finance committee. I now call this uh joint finance committee subboard meeting to order. This is this is all on. So, um, the reason we're getting together here is
to try to document some of the pros and cons of the various scenarios for a uh, public works building there. We don't expect to get to any sort of an agreement tonight. It's just
to sort of air all of our points of view. Um Scott Sullivan has produced a a deck of different scenario sheets that uh were circulated around very late this afternoon.
Um and what we hope to do is sort of document the pros and cons of each one of these scenarios and find some commonalities hopefully. So um the first couple of scenarios
are ones that I will speak to because can I just word word to um when we talk about these scenarios because uh I don't believe uh we're going to know exact numbers on cost of all these things. I'd
rather talk focused not necessarily on price of the scenarios but just what the scenarios are. Uh so you describing what so Dean when you go through the ones that have been presented before you describe what the scenarios are and I am
focused I focused uh the scenario was or the finance committee was really had a dual focus. We looked at this as two different issues, a staffing issue and an equipment storage issue. And I focused all of the um scenarios that I
added to the known scenarios really just from a staffing perspective. And um are we taking public comments? >> Your agenda called for uh public comments, but >> I did it. I I I don't believe it did
>> agenda. >> Um if I >> we I would suggest we stick with our at least on the select board we limit com public comments to three minutes. >> Fine. >> Mark said uh if I just stood up the mics
would pick it. I wouldn't need my own mic. Okay. >> Hello, Eric. E R I K Heels. HELS17 Forest Road. While I am an associate member of the Transportation Advisory Committee, I am speaking today for myself individually. On September 26,
2024, I made my first public statement about the safety of people and pets in the context of the proposed DPW project. This is my 12th public statement on this topic. At the April 29th, 2025 town election, Actton voters overwhelmingly
rejected the 36,770,690 proposed DPW project by a margin of 56.41% to 39.51%. And at the May 5th, 2025 town meeting, acting voters rejected a 3,750,000
proposed town hall HVAC replacement project. over $40 million of spending requested by >> Mr. Heels. Mr. Heels three minutes are not >> No, they're not. They they are certainly out because we just checked the posted agenda of the finance committee and there is no option here for public
comment. Nor was there any on the select board agenda. You can sit down. >> Scott, is he right or is he not? >> I did not actually put a public comment section on the pincom agenda for tonight. >> I must have misread the agenda. >> Yeah, >> I'll post the comments online. Thank
you. >> Thanks for taking the time to listen to the citizens de um we will proceed along going through some of the various scenarios. the uh the first scenario that was
discussed and for those of you who have not seen it, I know everyone here on the uh on both boards have seen this, but just for the public, what's posted online is the committee recommendation from the uh
Department of Public Works Building Committee, which uh the recommendation came out on October 15th, 2025. I'll refer that to that from time to time because we do kind of go through some of the scenarios. But scenario one
in the deck, uh, also referred to as option one. Basically, it's the original plan with a total of 40,641 square ft and the estimated project cost
of $34,438. Um, >> you want to just take these one at a time instead of read that way. I think it'll be more efficient. >> I think so. >> Um, so the select board is really already vetted these. Maybe you guys
could start on the scenario pros and cons that you've already kind of discussed at length on this first item and then we can add comments. Certainly. So option one frankly
would be my preferred scenario if money were not an an obstacle. Uh option one I think provided everything that we looked for on a slightly scaled down version. The only item that did not include was the washbay that had been eliminated
during value engineering. Um, so I think the pro is that it basically addresses all of the needs that were identified in the feasibility study and
it also addressed um well basically everything that that we'd looked for on the con side that I think would would be somewhat of an issue is that it would have required
evacuating the site during the construction process. And obviously on the con side is it's a very expensive option. Um properly escalated, we're looking at just under
$35 million and defer to my colleagues for any pros or cons you might have. Melissa, >> um, so you mentioned the elimination of the wash bay, but I remember that there were some other items that were
eliminated as part of the value engineering process. And I recall >> that's >> one specific um suggestion that that I had made at a DPW building committee meeting, which was to eliminate the
access for staff from the office area into the workshops and the mechanic bay um via an airlock. So once that was eliminated, um it saved some obviously
the cost of building the airlock and also some square footage in a hallway and it would force the staff to go outside every time they needed to get to the mechanic bays and the workshops. But I I don't recall what other specific
changes were made. So I would just like a reminder of that. So, we aren't on the um under the impression that it had everything that was identified as um a programmatic need in in Wesson and
Samson's assessment um with the with the staff. >> Thank you. So I want you to remind us if you remember >> what other >> what other things was it just making some of the offices >> everything got shrunk everything got
shrunk >> everything got shrunk >> and and we no longer had space to grow cuz I think there was one additional staff person space that had any more staff we would have had a problem. >> Yeah. But and I think the the most
noteworthy um deletion was the uh the loss of the washbay. >> Okay. >> And that actually was quite expensive. >> Yep. Thanks. >> Any other comments on select board on
scenario one? Pros or cons or does that cover everything? All right. spend time. Uh Greg, >> the um as a finance committee member on the uh DPW building committee when we looked at
the five options and as Dean said uh tried to evaluate them based on affordability, functionality, and longevity. Um option one did not pass the affordability test. It is the most expensive option that we had
here but it did pass the functionality uh in the longevity test. So, it was one of the things that we discussed, but in in the process of trying to weigh all five of these, um, we all
noted that it was the most expensive. Um, which will bring me to the second option, but I'll wait until we get there. >> Anybody else on com on the first one? So if I were to summarize like the pros and
cons on number on the the first uh it met all needs from a pros perspective except for it is missing the washbay. Um because it it's this is also
uh a tear down of the existing I'm going to call garage is probably not the best name for it, but the garage and rebuilding said garage with a combined connected uh full
uh full facility that does everything except for the washbay. And as a result, um, a negative is for a con for this is that, uh, it's going to require, uh, a
disruption of workflow, uh, if this was to be an option at the DPW because you're basically taking down their work site and replacing it. So that there could it would be potentially
a longer construction period, but we don't have exact measurements because this hasn't been fully vetted. And uh what other negatives did I not cover on that or any positives? >> I think the other negatives we've got is
that there was a loss of some of the potential circulation space between staff and the uh equipment garage. and was also a loss of any potential growth space.
Um, you know, we're putting together a 50-year building. And it it seems odd to design a building which will just take care of our needs right now and not look for potential growth. So, we've lost
that. And uh I think from a finance committee perspective uh we have acknowledged and this is why when I started this conversation this evening I was focused on staffing. We have acknowledge the need for the
staffing. We still have many questions on the equipment and because uh this scenario has uh kind of a rebuilding of the equipment space uh I think I don't know I think I I
don't want to make opinions. So um we're focused mostly on staffing I guess is probably the best way to say that. Um so I think we're done with scenario one. We can go to two. Okay, scenario two
is uh the cheapest of all the construction type options um and basically it envisions renovating only the existing facility
um at a cost of a bit over $11 million. The problem with that is that the amount of space both for fleet storage and for offices and for workshops is totally inadequate. The
building was undersized when it was designed in 1969 when we had 10,000 fewer people in town and many fewer roads. Um, so basically you'd spend $11 million to
renovate an old building that is in inadequate um, sizewise. And no matter what you do to fix the thing up, you still haven't solved the problem of size, uh, which is something that we've been dealing with for
well over 40 years. I'll look to my colleagues for their comments on that. >> Nothing to add. >> Great. >> And just as a followup um from the conversation on option one and option
two, we acknowledge that this was um the least uh expensive, therefore the most affordable option. But um the two other criteria that we were using was um did
it meet the uh functionality and we felt it this fell short. Um roughly it's it it it checks off roughly one-third of the boxes of the other options that we'll get to in a sec. Um,
and there were questions about its longevity. If we um renovated this building, how long would that last? Um, were we kicking the can down the road 30 years
or um 5 years? And and uh the the renovation option did not seem as as strong on that one. So again, um, in reviewing the five options that night, um, this had one plus,
one minus, and a sort of a boy, it's hard to tell, but we got questions. Uh my comment on this one is that
uh focus just on the staffing uh needs uh uh renovating the existing space to accommodate the level that the staffing would properly need. Um,
I don't have a cost like comparison, but I would I would expect that it would be not um if you're just looking at staffing alone, I don't know if it's if it's much
much better than starting from scratch. way I look at it is like sometime when you we have an old house that's falling down and you're trying to bring it up to code and sometimes you're just better off ripping it down and redoing it. Um
so from a staffing perspective uh I would think that scenario 2 I would say that is a weakness for two. Um there's we don't have I think enough information to say if there's enough space or not enough space that that was a a point of
contention I think that we were digging into. Um, so that we I don't know if we have enough information to to say that that they're that the building's the right size or too small or but I think we can
definitely say that uh renovating the space uh may not meet the needs of the staff. >> Correct. >> I don't know if anybody disagrees with me or agrees with me or >> I agree with that. just I don't think it's a from what we know is that being a
viable option. >> Yeah, cuz you'd have to you have to bring up the current codes. You have air issues that you have to deal with and >> well throwing good money after bad money. in mandating it along and then
what's going to change in this break is how long it I I don't see spending today's money for a building to renovate that and then in 3 years and be like oh we have to replace the building anyway. >> Yeah. I don't think that that building
was designed for staff in the first place or what. So I feel like the st when you walk through it, it feels like the staff are kind of squished in there. So uh so I so the I have as a summary for
scenario two uh that the existing structure if renovated uh would still uh
potentially not adequately meet the needs that the staff truly have. and therefore um spending the funds to renovate on scenario two
um would be I don't want to make a decision but it would I would list that as a potential con to that >> I can call it a bad investment if >> yeah I I I'm trying not to have I'm trying not to leave this with opinions I'm trying to trying to be as sterile as
I can with the fact >> yeah I just agree >> yeah just go ahead >> um So, I would just add to that that the operational costs for decades out would be higher for a renovated building
because it's not going to be as energy efficient. So, utilities would probably be higher. And and I would I would also say that I'm not comfortable with the use of the
word potentially not meeting our program needs. I I think we definitively >> know that because of the issues with the lack of spaces for female workers. And I don't I
don't remember if this renovation of the existing building was able to create those spaces without removing something that was critical for the existing staff, >> but I defer to folks that were on the
building committee. >> I'll I'll follow up on that a little bit. Um, as far as the adequacy of the existing building, the size of it, I'll refer you to the May 2021 feasibility study
which has been driving all of this. Um, it unquestionably found that the building is inadequate in size. Uh, and it's well documented here. This is not a secret document. This has
been available in the public domain for well over four years now. And this is what we based some of the primary designs for the new building. and the findings of this particular report were
brought to town meeting and discussed and that's what got us the uh design funds for the building that now does not appear we're going to be building. So I think I'll agree with Alyser. I'm not
comfortable at all with the idea that it's potentially sticking with a a building that was recognized as inadequate in 1969 um and sticking with that
in 2025 um just does not make sense. So I would >> well Dean from a finance committee perspective we do not have enough we we didn't have and we still don't have
enough detail um to determine if the building is an adequate size or inadequate size. We do have enough information to clearly state that it's not adequate for the staffing and I understand that you have a feasibility
study. The feasibility study is based on the existing equipment and we have had our the data point that's missing is the understanding and the level of detail of the equipment. I I don't want to argue
the point. I'm just stating the fact that as a finance committee we don't feel like you have enough information on that point. I understand you have a feasibility study, but that that's just it's missing it's missing complete data for finance committee.
>> Well, we've got a feasibility study and we've got actual experience of operation of the building for the last 50 years. Uh Fran, >> I just have a a quick question in that when you're just the clarification of staff, what are what you're talking
about administrative staff? I talk about I don't think it's equip it's a it's a a scenario two I don't think takes care of the needs of all staff and there's more than there's more than administration >> mechanics >> right I don't feel like they have a
proper working space I don't feel like I don't think like any of the staffing area is appropriate and I don't feel like renovating I don't want to make an opinion but I'm I would say it's a con on number two it doesn't address the through staffing me. So from that
perspective, I feel like scenario two is a >> if if it helps to provide some numbers for that. Um one of the things that the um DPW building committee did look at were the uh option scores that the
consultant um a street had provided. Option two got 20 points which is you know there are some things in there that we were looking for but um all the other
options are u basically in the 58 56 65 62 in other words it was um fairly clear that yeah it might tick off a third of the boxes but boy there's there's a lot
left that that that isn't there. So again, if if you need a numeric weighing of the scale, that was how we certainly analyzed it. >> So we could say that the consultants also valued this option low.
>> They rated it low. They were pretty neutral. They I I was I was pretty impressed with their objectivity. >> All right, I'm on for three. >> Okay, thank you. So option scenario three
um was a plan to knock down half of the existing building um and replacing it with a larger fleet storage garage attached to uh the half
of the building that was left and then renovate the half of the building that was left. Um the projected cost of about $28 million. The uh the issue we have here is that it
it would address the issues of fleet storage but it does not expand in any significant way um any of the staff areas. It does not provide uh
good mechanics areas. do not provide um anything in the way of uh amenities for the employees. It does not provide workshops and the uh since it looked like there was so
many negatives. We didn't do a huge structural analysis, but there was some concern as to exactly what the structural impact of taking down half of the existing building is going to be and then attaching to it. So, there was a
it would require a great deal more study to see if it was even um feasible from a structural point of view. >> You got pros and cons, too. Yes. >> And I'll look to my colleagues.
>> I think the biggest con for me is the um uncertainty about that structural um soundness of the of the proposal. >> I I speaking for myself, I would agree. I feel like you just look at you do any
home renovation, you're always afraid to open up a wall. Second you open up a wall, you find out, oh, we we have a plumbing problem. you have this problem. I always feel like like half touching something is usually end up with bigger problems. Um, any other comments over
here, >> Steve? Um, >> can they hear Steve? >> Yep. >> I know microphones. >> Yeah, you can hear just move that close to see. >> That's what I thought. >> Okay. It's good that we can't hear you.
What I a con in my mind about three is it it puts the the investment into fleet storage and short changes the staff investment and and that's not the way my priorities are. I I have it the other
way around. Agreed. And when we discussed this uh along with option 4B which we'll get to it looked like uh 4B put the priorities in the right place which was on the staff side. So uh again
we were there was a uh moment where we said should we be forwarding three proposals to the select board and we decided this third one isn't strong enough to even make that cut. So it got
winnowed out. Um, I have another another con is that the overall cost is less, but only because you've eliminated square footage, but the square footage cost is pretty similar. It's only $2 off from
option one. So, it's the second highest cost per square foot for the facility. >> Yeah, I that's why Yeah, that makes that makes sense. All right. So, I'll list that. Any other comments on scenario three?
All right. Scenario four. >> I think this is your 4 A and that's your 4B. >> Yep. >> Yep. Scenario four. Um once again, it provides a great fleet storage building, but um
because we're going to build a brand new fleet storage building and then be renovating the existing building. And again, as we've discussed before, you're getting into renovating a building that is um 50 years old. you don't know what you're
going to get into once you get into it. Um the cost of meeting proper new energy codes and structural codes and retrofitting the existing building be quite high uh because of the degree of
renovation that we're that we're talking about is basically almost reconstructing the entire building. And you might be surprised to hear me say this, but um taking the existing building and
renovating it and making it just into mechanics, office space, workshops, and that sort of stuff and take the fleet storage out. You've actually created more space that you're going to totally renovate than the program actually calls
for. I would say uh a negative is that you're you're putting the putting the staff in the renovated space which is backwards. I feel >> like
I'm most concerned about air quality and I I would imagine that getting the existing space um with perfect air quality would be harder than a newer space. Any Greg? Yeah, I I think it's also
worth noting that um when Aerost Street initially proposed to the DPW building committee options, there was only one option four and it was at um the finance committee's
request that option 4B be created. In other words, the original option was weighted to the fleet storage and we said, "Can you also give us a look at what what this half rena half new might
look like if you prioritize the people as opposed to the trucks. And so, um, again, one of the things that we looked at was not just 4 A in a vacuum, but 4 A contrasted to 4B.
4A was $4 million more, and it put the priority in the wrong place. And, interestingly enough, they both scored about the same when it came to how the option scores came out. And so, it became a wow. um putting the priority in
the right place is actually less expensive. And so again there was a debate as do do we forward two options to the select board and at that point um there was no appetite to recommend 4A. We we reached
a very I would say surprising compromise. We didn't I don't think we saw it at the beginning of the meeting, but by the end of the meeting, 4B became the best option of a five.
>> So, we're on to 4B. Um, are we any comments on 4 A? >> Yeah. >> Um, so one of the three uh criteria that Greg came up with, can I give you full credit for that? I don't know. I will. Um, go for it.
affordability cost reduction. This only reduces the cost by about a half a million, 600,000. So, it's we're not seeing a significant cost reduction and I think that voters sent a message that that that was something that was
necessary. Yeah. >> As well as the finance committee. Well, yeah, this was the second least expensive option that we had. And since the first one did not get us where we wanted to go in terms of functionality or longevity,
I felt perfectly comfortable backing into four 4B as the right framework for if if we want to debate, let's debate within the new construction for the employees uh renovation for the fleet.
>> Can we finish 4A? >> I just want to finish 4A. Um so for a uh Alex uh you need a microphone pass it over that one hand that one's easier to move.
Thank you. On the pro side for both 4 A and 4B is that they can have a they're a phased approach and they don't require staff relocations. The question that I would have in comparing and what I'd like some
more data on, what would the cost be to relocate the staff for the entire project until it's finished with option one? If it's not baked into this, that's going to be significant dollar amount for for the time period. And if it can
be phased in 4 A and 4B, especially 4B, that to me that makes a lot more sense from a uh, you know, keeping the costs down perspective. I just want to add that. >> All right, good questions. Um, can we just summarize 4A? We keep
talking about for I just want uh um Alyssa, could you say your point again? I I just want >> Oh, it didn't have sufficient cost reduction. it only brought the cost down by 600,000, >> right? And so my thought off of that thought was is that that cost reduction
is assuming that the renovation goes exactly as planned. Renovations never do. >> Okay? >> So you have a cost reduction that's minimal on 4A. However, if you encounter anything that's not anticipated on a renovation, your your
cost is going to potentially be higher. Right? I know there's I know you they build in buffers on these things, but >> if you're talking about a small difference and you're talking about a renovation, I don't know if it's that much of a savings. Okay, why don't we go
on to 4B, Dean, since we've already gone there six times. Yeah. So 4B um we're talking about building a brand new building which will accommodate all the area that will keep staff in um offices,
workshops, uh mechanics bays. Um all of that will be new. All of it will meet proper structural and energy codes. It'll provide adequate space for you know employees of all genders.
Um and then the other half of it is that we take the existing building and we clean out the office and workshop areas and we make it into a big fleet storage area.
It's the fleet storage area is not as large as what was determined to be a need during the feasibility study and all of our discussions with staff, but it's certainly better than what
we've got. Um, and certainly there's going to be some cost associated with cleaning up and structurally resupping the existing building, but it's uh not as heavy a cost as
building a new fleet storage area. And importantly, as people have noted before, we're putting our investment in the area that would be the most benefit to our staffing. Yeah, I my memory from town meeting was
that uh the the loudest voices were supporting the people that work for the town and the staff space and uh if we're investing dollars that seems to be the place that uh people
that I heard a town meeting talking about that they wanted money spent on Uh, go ahead, Greg. >> A new data point. I haven't bought everything up front. Um, one of the other things that, um,
convinced me that 4B was better than 4 A or some of the others, um, was that it was only 37,523 gross square feet total. And I think I mentioned to the finance committee earlier this summer uh that I
had visited the Yarmouth DPW building which turns out to be approximately the same size for a town that is approximately the same population and has roughly actually they have slightly more road miles to plow than we do. And
so, um, cost is one of those variables that is hard to deal with because of inflation, but square footage in my mind said, well, then this seems to be right sized. So, it was another reason why I liked
option 4B. >> I I just like to say, Greg, that I don't feel like the finance committee has enough data to determine what size the building should be. the the size of the storage facility is based on the equipment that's stored. We have still have a lot of questions about that. Um
the the the pro to 4 4B is that um we are not building new space for storage for equipment and we're addressing staff and I don't want to have an official opinion on right sized or what square
footage is the right size of the building because I don't feel like we have enough information to >> to say what size the building should be. >> Well, I apologize. I don't mean to speak for the finance committee. I was speaking for myself as a DPW building committee. >> I don't I don't feel like we have enough
information for that. Any other comments on 4B? >> All right. Go ahead. >> Your team over question. >> I just quickly wanted to ask um can a washbay be added in 4B?
>> Um I mean there's there's physically enough space. >> Yeah. >> Uh exactly how it would go. I mean, we're still in the early days of designing the new building, but you know, if that's
something that people want, uh, which I think everyone does, it's something that could be added. I think one of the pros on um 4B is that uh the new space could be built
and not disrupt services >> because it's separate and independent. And then when the new space is functional, available to use, that's when the staff can just walk over to it
and um exit what they were using. And then they could go into the phase of expanding the fleet storage in the existing structure, which I think I would we don't have any numbers, but I would imagine that would probably cut
down construction costs because you're not renovating and moving around people. And I I would think it would make the the project have a shorter timeline, at least for the new staffing space. So, I think that would be a pro for it.
>> All right. Um, >> can can we go back to what Alex um brought up, which is the cost of relocating >> the operations? Do we did we get that figure?
>> David, uh, I know that that uh, value was included in the town meeting proposal. >> So, the >> So, it should be in here as well. It may not have been listed separately in in the motion, but um the difference between the structure cost and the
project cost. One of the main things was moving the um uh employees off site and accommodating during during construction. I don't know what Arow Street did. Now, just to follow up on that, um,
town manager and staff and I accompanied him on many of these trips, we did look at alternate space to move into. Um, there's not a surplus of adequate space available in the private
sector um, within the confines of ACT. And we did locate a couple of spots and we were looking quite seriously if if the plan back in May had gone ahead um actually leasing two separate spaces
um at opposite ends of the town. one area to be basically for the uh fleet storage and for the mechanics and the other area to be more of the workshops and office areas. Um
obviously there's some inefficiencies of having to split your operation especially splitting by almost seven miles. Um and then there's the cost of moving the equipment. Um we were looking
seriously at you know is there ways to bring in temporary truck lifts to put into the temporary space and what would be the cost of that. So it was a it was a pretty would have been a pretty disruptive operation and costly. Uh I don't have the dollars, but
I know the town manager had been negotiating uh conceptually and whether those spaces would even be available in the future is something else. But um being able to stay on the site and not have to move is
certainly a a real plus with the 4B or any of those. even the 4A if we went with that which I don't think anybody's advocating. >> All right. So now we're on to Oh, sorry, David. >> So I don't think I had had a chance to
do it. So number of advantages I think to 4B. Uh the budgetary estimate for operating costs is the lowest I think of all the alternatives. Um the budgetary um estimate is lower than 4A which is a a similar size but the budgetary estimate is much lower than the town
meeting proposal uh earlier this year. A wash bay could be uh considered in either structure either in the uh structure with the mechanics or in the double-sized garage. Um
uh the newer um personnel structure will have longer life obviously longer operating life than uh and they we're putting the vehicle storage in the in the shorter life structure which I think is an advantage.
Um it satisfies the the personnel requirements similar to the um uh town meeting proposal and and doubles the storage. Uh other people talked about that for the for the fleet. Um even though the full fleet is not
accommodated and um uh the separate facilities or separate structures I should say uh for uh personnel and equipment um inherently uh reduces the problems for um uh for
having uh clean air in the facility. Jake. >> Um, so I just wanted to make one more point on the the size um of the fleet storage. It's 18 vehicles and we could perhaps fit
a few more, two, three, four more into the mechanic bays once they are no longer occupied because staff is over in the new building. But the um fleet analysis that was done um at the request
of the finance committee shows that our plow operations are 26 vehicles >> um which is more than what will fit. So I don't really want to call it a con, but it's just one feature of 4B is that
there isn't enough space for the winter plow operations. Yeah, there's um there's other options for storing vehicles besides just um and it's I know there it's not desired, but
you could store vehicles at uh an unused fire station. Um you could store vehicles in other parts of the town. We don't have any uh tangible proof that uh keeping vehicles outside is going to deteriorate the the material life of the
vehicles. So there's there's a, as I said originally, we have a lot of questions on the equipment >> and I and we can debate equipment all night long, but I I really would like to focus on the staffing because I think we all agree that dealing with
>> this is actually related to staffing, Scott. Um, even if you're not convinced that we need to keep these vehicles inside to extend their life, which Weston and Samson provided analysis, maybe not enough data, but the winter storm
operations um are carried out by staff and to have the vehicles indoors so they're not covered in snow or ice is pretty critical for safe safe and efficient >> staffing.
work to, you know, to get out there and and yes, maybe they can be over in, you know, an empty fire station, >> right? And when there's a winter storm, it's not just the town staff plowing the streets. >> Correct. >> We hire contractors. So, >> yeah, for the contracted vehicles
>> and it sounds like we almost double the staff when we have a storm. So, >> we're contracting out almost twice the headcount of the town for plowing the storm. So, um, those vehicles don't have to be in the same location. >> Correct. >> So, but I I again I don't want to focus
on equipment because I I feel like it distracts from um really objective. What I'd like to get to is just uh I'd like to cover the pros and cons, especially in these next slides because they haven't been really documented as well
as the others of uh of of discussions that we've had in finance committee discussions that uh came up previously and uh open forum so that we can just list some pros and cons of of of these
and just march through Uh so the first one is to do absolutely nothing which is scenario six. Um and since I I'll I'll lead on the pros and cons on these since I listed these out. I think the con on this one is that um
there's complete agreement um from the finance committee I believe and all the select board that the current staffing situation is inadequate um irregardless of what's going on with the equipment um to do nothing would be
to say that we are going to ignore an obvious need for staff. So that would be my comment on six. Any other Anybody else want to say anything? Not we. We can move on. >> Move on. Unless you >> um I I would I would also add that um
the current facility doesn't meet accessibility requirements which impacts the public and contractors who want to visit. >> Um >> doesn't have the mirror showers. the site doesn't um meet current storm water
regulations and that can be addressed if we choose one of the other options. Um I'm trying to think if there's anything else that's environmental cuz it's it's fire building accessibility health storm water.
>> So I guess only the storm water is the environmental one. So any other >> we cannot open first. >> It's your committee and I'll let you call on your own people. >> It sets us up for a crisis, right? >> Um yes, we there's nothing required us
to start doing something next year. But um we're setting the longer we wait the more we're setting ourselves up for a crisis which would be horrendously expensive and disruptive. Um I I I don't understand the crisis
comment. What's a crisis? >> Well, the at some point the building will fall down. The there are there are structural problems in the building. They they can be fixed, but it has to be renovated. I mean, there's no doubt that there's structural problems in the building. the
the um >> street a street say would last at least another 15 years >> if it was renovated. >> That doesn't indicate to me a building's about to fall down. >> It it's an unreinforced concrete block building with cracks in the walls. You
can't get much less structurally sound than that. >> Now that that that building can be fixed up um but it it do nothing doesn't mean it's it means it's specifically not renovated. So the difference between this and scenario two
um uh is this I mean it has to be setting us up for a crisis at some point, right? It you know who's to say when the building will will fall down or when we'll have um uh a severe health problem by an employee or what
the crisis is? >> I would say we would have a a higher need for staff in less than 15 years >> than we would have for the building to fall down. I think it doesn't meet >> that's clearly an opinion right um that right >> we do have earthquakes here in
Massachusetts and in Actton >> when was the last earthquake we have >> just a few years ago I felt my house shake no my house did not fall down but stuff inside my house >> that's been since what 1961 >> okay hasn't fallen down yet >> correct
>> yes but it will that is true of every building that succumbed to an earthquake but it didn't fall down before it too sidebar here. >> It's not a you you were saying that you wanted to avoid um uh opinion, right? Um the the
the fact of the matter is that there will be a crisis of some sort with that building. I mean, no building lasts indefinitely, right? And so, uh uh you know, we could debate what we think the crisis might be. Um, but there'll be a crisis at some point.
>> At the risk of um foreign opinions, um, is there anyone here that thinks we should do nothing? >> You mean we're arguing over nothing? >> Well, I think >> or something else.
>> I think that the um the aim here, if I'm understanding Scott correctly, is to list pros and cons of all of these scenarios. And this scenario says absolutely nothing. So I think that David's point here is a valid one that
if we do absolutely nothing, the building could fall down one wall, one corner, could crush a $300,000 vehicle, could injure perhaps permanently a person. So I think that that is a
legitimate potential. >> We will list it >> con. Let's list it in the cons. Yes. I mean we you you did mention staff, right? This the big con is staff. We are not currently in compliance with OSHA regulations. So I think that David's
point that there is a crisis potentially waiting to happen if we do absolutely nothing is completely legitimate. >> Okay. Well, I would think that situation is even more of a crisis because we've been ignoring it for years. >> Fair enough. >> At least 10. Well, we actually haven't
been ignoring it because it's my understanding that this has been discussed and committees have been formed and studies have been done and we have been, you know, chugging chugging along for 10 years trying to resolve
this issue. Um, trying to get to a compromise that most people, 50% of people, twothirds of people can can agree to. question. >> Yeah, thank you. >> Fine. >> All right. Scenario seven is uh and this
came up a lot when we talked about this in finance committee >> is why can't we uh instead of building a building, lease space or buy an existing building? So this slide that um would be in the packet that not everybody can see
I grabbed from today's uh real estate commercial listings and mind if I grab this key and my this is for distance there is like the first one I did >> I did a search for commercial real estate in actton and it listed built in
1985 a 20,57,000 ft building available to rent at 100 discovery white I have no idea idea what that building is or like what it what it is but it's not suggesting that we use that building. The just the scenario pro
and con is the pro and con of leasing space or buying an existing building versus uh building a solution. That's it doesn't so the example I'm listing is not saying I'm not saying we we are to
use that. I'm just highlighting the map is all the available real estate in town. I have no idea the sizes of all these other buildings and that's the pro and con. >> Um want to just list out why we would or why we wouldn't purchase something.
>> So I would say to Can I speak? Sorry. >> Um so I would say the big con for purchasing a building is the cost of that in addition to taking it off the tax roles, the commercial tax roles. I
don't think that taxpayers in town would appreciate us bringing the commercial tax base down. They want us to bring it up. Um, I also looked at office space to rent um when I heard your discussion
about renting office space and um the range that the AI summary says for act office building is $14 to $30 per square foot per year. Um, but because I don't like to put all my faith
in those summaries, I looked at a specific office space as you did, which is I can't remember the address, but it's on Main Street across from um the post office square road. Um, I think that was one of the options we looked at for renting for Senior Center.
>> So, it's and and it had enough space. So, our space in option 4B was what? 8400 square ft². So, this had um spaces that were between 1,500 and 9,950.
So, at $16 a square foot, which was the listing a couple months ago, um if we assume that well, it's an it's an old building, so I don't know if we can assume that um we would be there for 50 to 70 years, but
it will cost more in rent and utilities than the cost of constructing. So, we're not really saving any money. So if we assume that say we build option 4B and
that building lasts 70 years um if we don't do that and we rent instead then we're going to be saving an additional we're going to be spending an additional 4 million to rent and that's like if the rent stays $16 a square foot a year
which it won't it will it will go up. Um, and then if we only stay there 50 years, >> I'm so confused right now. >> How many years? Can I just ask how many years you looked at for the year? >> I just multiplied by 70 years because I'm anticipating that this building will
last 70 years. But and that, you know, we'd be spending 4 million more in rent if the rent stayed the same. But if we only stayed here for 50 years, cuz that's how how old the building is currently, and we're thinking about
creating a new one, then we would be spending $2 million more. >> Well, the whole the function of rent is that if you take rent and you compare it to a purchase price, it's just you can you can run rent out until you exceed
the purchase price. So, are you talking about renting a place for our highway facilities? >> I just the office staff. >> Just the staff. >> Just the office staff. >> Mhm. >> Yeah. >> I think keeping them together is a pro.
Write that down, Scott. >> For morale. And I mean, they all work arm in- arm. So, I think separating them is not a great idea. Yeah, that that piece doesn't really fit into my analysis. I was just looking at dollars
like, oh yeah, there's lots of office space in town and it's empty and it's for rent, so should we rent it? Well, it's actually going to cost us more to rent than to um build a facility and then we have the added bonus of the the efficiencies of
the department all being in the same place. I, you know, talking about, you know, office space and and rent. I've got some experience with that. Um, we rented the, uh, one floor of 42 Nog
Park >> back in the 1980s when Town Hall was being renovated and, you know, the you've got the moving cost of going there. We had to move the entire town hall operation there. And then we paid the rent and it worked okay
for a short period of time during the construction period, but I don't think that it's going to make much sense to do it over a long period of time, 20 years or so. We also when we're renovating the north wing of town hall, we move some people up into
Park. Um, at the strong recommendation of the finance committee back around 2014, we decided to not pursue uh building a
new senior center on Arlington Street and rent instead. And it seemed like it was going to be a great idea. So, town manager at the time put the RFP together and many of the spaces that people said,
"Oh, this stuff is available." It wasn't available when landlords were going to have to commit to 10 years for the town of Actton. Uh, and the prices that people were talking about were quite different than
what had been projected initially. We looked at a building on Post Office Square. We looked at the Phillips building um that Alyssa was just talking about. And then we ended up with the location that we've
got, which is a great building, but the most frequent complaint I hear at the Council on Aging is that this is a great building, but it's too damn far to get here. So, I think geographical area makes a lot of sense when you're talking
about local government. And now we're 10 years into it. And I think the rent help me, Mr. Manager. Are we looking at $300,000 a year to rent that building? >> 100 grand a year. >> Oh, yeah. >> Pardon me.
>> It's 100 grand a year to rent the senior center. >> It's more than that. Uh we also pay O andM I mean um CAM fees which are common area maintenance fees on top of it. Um and we pay utilities. So um I can give
you the exact lease amount >> but in a minute. >> I mean but the the interesting thing is I mean yeah it's it's a good short-term solution if you're moving to something else but I don't think it's a good long-term solution. And if you look at the other
possibility of um buy the building uh or once you have once the town owns it and you have to renovate it, all of that is subject to uh the public bid laws uh
prevailing wage. >> All of that sort of things. And the the issue that Alyssa brought up is that you're taking it off the tax roles. So >> if there was an existing building that was out there that was already set up as a maintenance garage, you Yeah, you move
the whole operation there. I don't think we got one in Actton, though. >> And I know Steve wants to um fuss about my math, which I'm totally >> I'm not going to fuss about your math. I'm not going to talk about rentals. Actually, I know you guys looked at the the old Saab dealer as an interim
location. >> Um, so I don't even know what's in it. Are are they are the maintenance bays still in the building or has it been stripped? >> Well, are maintenance bays in the building, but they're not sufficient for trucks.
>> But they are for cars, I'm sure. Yeah, but we would have ended up having to that complicates things even worse because then you have your mechanics, some of them working on small vehicles in South Actton and the rest are working
on large vehicles in North Actton. >> So, did we look at the possibility of buying that site? I know it's in the wrong part of town, but um I think it's assessed for less than $3
million. Um and it would have had a start. It had some office and it had some mechanical base. You could have added what you needed. Probably in the long run wouldn't have worked out. But did we
even consider it, >> Jim? >> Um, a process observation. We seem to have uh changed from trying to list pros and cons to trying to uh figure out what the whether it's right or not. If I'm following Scott's logic, I think that's
not a helpful direction for tonight. >> Yeah, we we've done that before. It took a couple hours and we didn't get anywhere. >> Yeah. So, I think just to list pros and cons uh would be best. >> Well, the uh con that I would list for that in addition to the cost of rent um
and I didn't even factor in CAM. Um Dean, you said that it was okay when staff were temporarily relocated to North Actton, but I have had conversations with a few of them that said it was pretty terrible being
separated from their colleagues that they need to work with. Um you know, go down the hallway and talk to somebody. I know you can pick up the phone. It's not the same. So, um, to separate the staff in a single department is a con in my
opinion. >> No, no question. Uh, what worked okay was when we moved the entire town hall to to, uh, Neog Park. >> Um, >> I think I'm I talked with people who during the north wing renovation who got moved.
>> Most of them weren't born when we moved. >> Well, they're retired now, but yeah. David has something to say. >> Yeah, Alex. >> Oh, sure. Yeah. 42 Nagg, we actually when we had our startup uh just a few years ago, we rented at the I I did the
commercial arguing to get that uh to get that office space. So, that's pretty funny that it wasn't there, too. Um so, the con is for this one uh it is not a long-term solution.
The pro is is that when you are doing a commercial real estate uh lease nowadays, especially with the market being somewhat soft, is that literally everything is negotiable. So, it can be
turnkey. You get a 10-year lease. The owner of the building will renovate andor uh set everything up for you, and you can move right in. and you give them your or you give them your requirements, you move right in. >> Uh the rent can be negotiated to whether
it goes up, it goes down after 2, 3, 5 years. >> Uh I've moved our company three times in the last 6 years. I've done it all. Well, cuz as you get you out the space, you've got to get a new space. Uh we've bought out leases and all of any
scenario you can think of. Um but there's a there's an insane amount of flexibility uh technical term insane. Um there's an insane amount of flexibility that can be had when going to lease commercial space and there is a lot of space available in
actton right now from that with that regard. So that is a pro. >> Justice side is somebody who spends his time monitoring the number of toilet flushes in Nog Village. U there's a lot of empty office space.
So >> yeah, go to >> the the the thing about taking a property out of the commercial tax base and losing the property taxes on it is the loss in tax revenue is almost certainly dwarfed by the debt payment on building something
new. So from the taxpayer perspective, you're better off leasing and taking that out of the tax base for now until you sell it and put it back into the tax base. Mhm. >> Um, the other thing I'll say is everything, all of these options except for option one, I guess, they're all interrum
solutions because if we renovate one in five or 10 years, we're going to renovate the other side. If we lease eventually, we're going to get out of that lease and build something new. The they're they're all interim except for building an entirely new facility. So, I don't think we should discount something because it's not a permanent solution.
None of them are. So that's a con for >> David. >> Um several things. Um so uh one con is no single building in town will work. We're definitely at least into multiple buildings. Um uh with customization
costs in addition to rent and other costs that um uh Alyssa outlined. It's really not sure that it clear that it would be cheaper. And there are disadvantages to separating any of the office staff, but half of the
office staff can't be separated. They half of the office staff are supervisors to the crews and need to be with the crews. The remaining office staff, we're down, we only have nine office staff, right? The remaining office staff, four or five depending on how you how you count them, right? um
uh you know that they could probably be in in any office, but to put them in separate from the rest of the the department is a clear disadvantage. All right, I think we beat that to death. All right. Um option eight um if since
you none of everybody doesn't have in front of them it's uh the thought is to use Conan um since it's not going to be a property uh uh well uh not to use Conan with the assumption that is not
going to be used by the school. So there's a con already. Um there's two slides for slide eight. Uh slide one shows that it's about 1,200 feet uh the Conan and that it's 1,200 feet from the
the garage to the to Route Two. >> Um just driving out. Um and I did check that you can make a path from the DPW building the Conet without going over wetlands. >> Um the So this has come up numerous times.
Um, this would just be to move the staff, not the mechanics bays, not the um, you know, just moving the staff only staff to Conan. Um and ideally knowing
that nine people are not going to fully occupy Conan, the other thought would be is to multiuse it as a senior center and get the senior center into the center of town near the arboritum and uh release
us of the cost of what Dean highlighted as something that ended up being not as beneficial I guess to the town as we thought it would be. So that's what this is. This has come up a handful of times as we've discussed the DPW and I think
we should just list pros and cons of this knowing that the first pro is is that the town does not own the property. Um but it if my understanding and everybody can correct me is that if the school were to vacate this property, it
would be sold back to the town for a dollar. And if it was immediately occupied, because I confirmed this at the ALG meeting, but immediately occupied, it would not require the immediate um investment to renovate the
building to um bring it up to, you know, electrification and all these other things that makes it a multi-million dollar investment. Um, so you could you could minimalize the uh cost and have the staff um
probably what a five minute walking distance, a 30-second car ride back to the main center and um my ideal scenario with the senior center is to repurpose the gym as a pickle ball court. But
that's like >> that would be my idea uh with the gym. But >> um >> pros and cons. >> I'm not sure if this is a pro or a con. It's a question for now. Is there showers and locker room facilities at Conant?
>> Small ones. I'm sure all three of my kids went there. I don't recall ever seeing see but that you know that's part what what >> cost of renovations to Conan and would it impact
>> bringing it up to compliance? That is a con, you would have to change out toilets and that type of stuff. >> I have a question. When you say moving the staff but not the mechanic bays, the staff work in the mechanic.
>> You have nine people that are in cubicles that we're building office space for. >> Are we talking about admin? the three folks that are in the the nine people that are in cubicles >> and then you've got the DPW director,
the engineers, the deputy director, >> you're taking them to Covenant. >> Those that would be what this scenario would say. You can list pros and cons and you feel that's a con. So I would say that having the DPW
director and the DPW assistant director, town engineer off site as a con. >> Do you consider that offsite, 1200 ft away? >> Yep. I think you know a couple of cons that I would suggest is
you know I've seen this movie before which was when the building which is now the admin building was actually Miriam Elementary School and it was declared surplus and we and it was clearly a town building.
It was not a regional building and Duray Hunter and I and some other folks approached the schools. The possibility Greg probably >> in your in your generation um
and there was great reluctance if not total refusal on the part of the schools to give up the building. Not that they needed to use it but they wanted to preserve their options. So I don't think Conan school is in play at
this point because we we don't know whether the regional school will actually declare it surplus and will actually turn it over and we're dealing with several entities, town of Boxboro voters being one. Um so
there's there's a problem. schools told us back then in the 1980s, "Yeah, you can take the building and you can renovate it for town hall, but if we need it back in four or five years, you guys have got to find someplace else to go."
So, so I'm not sure that Conan school actually is in play at this point. That's one thing. Another issue we have, I I think it would I we could move the the nine people. I think it's a really bad idea to split
the staff, but you could move the people into one or two classrooms. Yeah, indeed they would physically fit. Be terribly inefficient. I think there if the building ever becomes available, it might be great for a senior center and lots of other things, but I'm not sure that this is
the right scenario, >> Jim. Well, for listing pros and cons, uh pro is that it's potentially less expensive. >> It's also potentially more expensive. >> True. True. But it has has the the of all the various scenarios of various
things could go wrong. If it does go right, it is less expensive. >> So, listen, I'm listening at it on both columns. you've got one of your uh >> so I think a a pro is that they're it's essentially colllocated. Alyssa disagrees with me but I think they're
coll-located. Um the I think that it will I think that conit will be available because otherwise they've identified as part of their AB forward analysis that that to keep that building online would require $17 million and
that's an old estimate. Yeah, >> I was just shaking my head. million 50 to100. >> No, that's to replace it. They were saying the $17 million was to to renovations. >> $17 million was from 2014. >> I know a booth, but it was also for renovations, not replacement,
>> right? >> It was for >> My point is if they try to keep that building, it blows up their analysis. >> They So, and then and in the original regionalization agreement, it did say that if they took a you know, if they didn't use a school, the town shall buy it back for $1. But they're keeping it
for at least one more year. >> Are they? >> Yeah. As they transition. >> Okay. >> That was discussed at the AB Forward meeting last week because they need to figure out where all of their programs are, including >> there's not going to be anybody there
next fall. So, they've already um assessed this with their council and as long as it's occupied, even if it's just by furniture and equipment, it's still a school. So, they don't have to sell it
back to the town for the next school year. And they need to maintain it in order to do the transition that's going to be required. figuring out, you know, maybe they need to move furniture over there while they renovate something to fit the students in the new schools as
whatever configuration and then they move furniture out. I don't know that they'll it'll be at least one more year where it will still be owned by the school and and occupied. >> Okay. >> But that doesn't help. I don't know if
you're using that as a as a I don't know as a con to this. The fastest a solution would be built for the DPW would be >> it wouldn't even start until what 2028.
>> Yes. I'm I'm not using it as well it won't be available for a year so we can't pursue that. It's we won't even know what the end result is. >> Yeah. >> For a year now. They're not going to be
talking about it and making plans for it. That's a con. >> Mhm. >> For a while. >> Unknown uh status. >> Unknown timeline. >> Unknown timeline is a is a con. >> status as well. >> I guess I'll call on Dave if you will.
>> So, um uh if the town got this building, we cannot just assume that we can use it for DPW, right? The town would definitely have a process to figure out what to do with the building. Just for as a matter of comparison, to decide
what to do with the piece of property on River Street, just to decide what we wanted took a year and a half. Um, and that's just a little empty piece of property. Um, um, Conant is way overkill for five cubicles.
The the he the heating cost itself is tremendous. Um uh and 1,200 ft is almost a quarter of a mile. >> It's a shorter distance than the kids do walk at the Bor Rock school from the Borwa school to the tennis courts.
That's 958 square ft. I mean 958 ft. So it's a shorter distance than the students are walking to tennis courts at the boardwalk school. >> Yes. But they don't go visit their employees. >> And I think everybody would be driving anyway. So there I want to be clear too because
you said there's nine cubicles. There's essentially four cubicles and five offices, right? And the five five offices are by the people who supervise other people. Come on. >> I can tell you who they are. I I'm I'm sure you can. I just I thought I saw nine on the chart and offices. I
>> There are nine offices. >> There's nine offices. Oh, sorry. There there are nine people who sit in the office space. Didn't you get some photos of these smiling faces? >> Yeah, they all look different in cubicles. I sat with John and we went over it.
>> Okay. >> So, these are all offices one. I thought there was two. >> Are you looking at the new design or the old design? >> I'm looking at the handout that we have in front of us on 4B. >> So, the all the ones around the edges in
4B are offices. So the the DPW director sits in an office, the uh superintendent sits in an office, the assistant superintendent sits in an office, the tree warden sits in an office, and the engineering the the town engineer sits in an office. The people who are in
cubicles are the office manager, the business manager, and the two engineering staff >> and an intern, right? >> I that's the second engineering staff. >> Okay, >> you guys can correct me if I'm wrong, John NS. So there there are four cubicles and five offices
and the the five people who supervise people need an office because they they review a lot of people, right? And they talk with personnel issues and a lot of people they need a door. >> So what's the con? The >> um the con is that people are going to be nearly a quarter of mile away from
their employees. I mean, when when I was working in that building, you know, I had staff just on the other side of the door, and there was constant movement back and forth, supervising folks, checking on folks. Some
somebody's got a question. Um, it's it's almost constant contact between these office folks and the folks are in the workshops and the folks are going in and out on the trucks. So,
you know, then I transitioned and I had an office in town hall and eventually over in the red house and yeah, it's more than a quarter of a mile between that and 14 Forest Road, but still it's it's inconvenient and there's a loss of supervisory
control when you start separating the operation. And I think now we've established, you know, we're arguing about basically office space of one sort or another for nine people. I mean, it's a it's a very
small area and it's a very small portion of the entire building for the amount of inefficiency that you're going to add into the system. If if you wanted to build a whole new building, you know, knock down half of
Conanit and build a brand new DPW there >> because you think that's a better spot. >> Yeah, you could do that, but you're going to end up spending $29 million to build a new DPW that you access off Taylor Road as
opposed to one you access off Forest Road. I don't know as you really benefited from that at all. Uh to say nothing of upsetting a whole new group of people. >> So your con is that it it it it
uh dilutes the uh ability of people to work together. >> Right. >> Okay. And just to just to reference um a different department, the the chief of the fire department was in to the select board meeting one week ago and talked at
great length about training and supervision and morale that's been improved by putting more staff um together in fewer fire stations. So it's a very real thing whether we're talking about the fire department or the public
works department. I think >> Jim. Um Scott, you we you may think we're done with this, which is quite possible, but if you think we're not, uh I was confused about how using Conan would interact with these other
scenarios. I mean, does it does it include an assumption about, you know, whether we're redoing the the the building for the the vehicles or whether we're redoing a building for some of the the other staff or
>> this a very good question, Jim. Um, this has only been discussed in finance committee as um why don't we use Conan? >> Okay. It hasn't been explored to that level of thought because when we
discussed this in the summertime, Conan was not available. >> Okay, >> it's it the reason why it's listed here is for for two reasons. One, we discussed it as a committee multiple times. And two, it seemed uh reasonable
to expect that the school is going to lessen severely their use of the actual physical property. >> To what extent, we still don't know for certain, which is listed as a con. So it is reasonable to list this as a scenario
because the purpose here is that when we get to town meeting months and months from now when we all have more information about a lot of things >> um if we were to collectively say oh you shouldn't use Conan. I want to point to this meeting and the pro and con listing
to hear, you know, Dean and Alyssa talk about, you know, staffing being together and and uh separating a fraction of the staff from some of the other staff and the pros and cons of it. Uh I just wanted to be black and white binary like
this is thoughts on it right now and >> there's a lot of information and a lot of way this could be spun >> that uh you know we we don't know what it would look like you know okay you know there's a lot of scenarios here with it we could probably dive into but
>> I think the most logical one is that >> uh what I presented which would be partial staff DPW moving there >> with the also thought that you would be utilizing the rest of the property because you would have to do some renovations there to bring some of the
facility up to code. It would make sense and then move the senior center there. So there would be a dual purpose because it's too big for just the amount of staff that would be moving over from DPW. So that would any other thoughts on this and we can move on the previous question.
>> Thank you. Scenario nine is uh moving staff to existing uh buildings. Um on this slide I just have listed all the properties. I have not investigated all the properties. I do not know the true
capacity of all the properties but we have discussed this in finance committee. Um, I'm looking for the group here to advise if there is space for uh nine people because I know they all didn't originate at the DPW. I know some
were moved there um historically or someplace else, but that space could be used up now by other staff positions. Um, is there space for nine people in another town building? >> So, this is only town buildings, not >> correct >> office building that we might rent. This
is just town because we already handled the rent lease in another question. So it's just just moving staff to a build a building. >> So I'll empty >> I'll start off and we've got a listing
here that I know some people can see and some can't. >> It's the listing that the town manager put in his budget package. Absolutely. All the properties on town. So, Three School Street, it's been sold.
Um, Woodlon Cemetery Chapel. >> It's a great place to quiet. >> It's quiet. >> It's a little dark. >> Wood. I like it. >> Woodlon Hurst House. Well, 300 square ft. It's quarter the size of my barn and
has the same amenities as my barn does. >> Are you offering your barn? Um >> well instead of listening all >> let's talk about realistically. >> So so realistically >> engineering moved out of my house. >> Here's a
>> I don't think anybody's suggesting that we move the office staff to the transfer station. Um two buildings listed here on Maple Street. Both are on long-term lease to the Actton Food Pantry. So,
I don't think if at some point a decision is made to go to a three-station scenario for a fire department, >> yeah, maybe we'll have a space >> that needs to be renovated, but you
know, there'll be a space, but we ain't there yet. And we have the same problem that we will with moving half moving the office supervisory staff to the Konet school except they'll be further away depending
upon which fire station they go to. So the thought that and there's one other issue that's going to be coming up shortly is that eventually there's going to be a major renovation project at town hall
and we're going to have to move everybody out of the town hall for that renovation project. >> What project is that? This is for the HBAC system. And >> yeah, >> finding spots to put all those people in. Now
you have to add another nine people into that mix. So, um, >> maybe you can get them in the corner. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. They'll all >> if all the timing works, that would be great. But, I mean, that's a
>> that's an issue that we have. um with >> that's the reason >> you know you you made the statement about well people have moved back into the DPW because they move from someplace else. Well actually they move back and forth repeatedly
um depending upon what the function is and that sort of stuff. We moved the engineering department out of DPW and put them in the red house for a couple of years and found that it was not effective because there wasn't the the opportunity for the engineers to interact with the folks who are actually doing the work.
Um, so it's it's basically all of the same problems you have with eliminating that supervisory control for your employees if you go someplace else if we even had the space. >> There's there's also a need in some of
these buildings for um emergency equipment storage. So, a lot of that, well, I don't know if a lot of it, but some of it was at Maple Street. And when the Actton food pantry moved in, that had to be moved, I think maybe into the Windsor building, but these are like the
fire chief's generators and CS and, you know, things that we would need in a in an emergency. So, there is a need for some space that's municipally owned to to store emergency equipment. Um and certainly the Windsor building is not
accessible. >> Yeah. What's missing >> accessibility is an is an issue. >> What's missing in the equipment analysis uh that I asked for but I didn't I wasn't specific enough is the uh the detail of the redundancy of the vehicles
uh done redundant equipment in town. So equipment that's not being actively used. >> I thought you only asked for DPW equipment. You asked for >> Well, you were talking about other equipment right now. I was talking about emergency equipment like generators, not vehicles.
>> Yeah. >> Okay. So, emergency generators. All right, that's fine. >> All right. So, >> Jim has his hand up. >> Jim, um, one of the reasons I like exploring uh, scenario 7, 8, and nine is they all they're all potentially
responsive to what happens in the um, in the David Martin disaster scenario. I mean if we suddenly discover that you know the building is not definitely not going to be occupiable in a year uh so it's like sort of a medium slow
emergency uh it's good to know that there are there are you know temporary solutions um the the advantage for me of of scenario nine the one we're talking about now is that it's entirely within
our control um that that we can the town can move people around without having to, you know, sign lease agreements or figure things out with the regional school district. So, a con of that, a pro of that one is that it it's under our control. Um,
just just wanted to say that. >> Do we have to call it that though? >> No, that was just a light moment. It's okay. I don't have to call it that. Any other comments on nine? >> I think we can move. I only have 10. So, >> I think helping help me uh words smmith
this a little bit, but I think a con is if if we are to relocate any number of staff into one of these buildings, is there uh compliance issues or, you know, will our renovations need to take place? I
mean, the the the one that pops into my mind is I drive by the the Morrison place every single day and the barn's empty and the house is empty and uh well, I mean, there may be some things in the barn, but you know, like I've seen, >> hey, >> I've seen houses like that turned into
office spaces in the past. So, >> um but what's the compliance? So, I think there's a con there, but I'm not quite sure how to word it. >> Mhm. unknown renovation costs or code code compliance costs. Yeah, >> code >> unknown code renovations.
>> We actually looked at specifically the Morrison house um some years ago we looked possibility of making that into some kind of office space. >> Mhm. >> And you know one of the issues is that it has a very small footprint.
So, in order to, you know, get office use on the second story, you're into an elevator. >> Mhm. For public use area. Um, the built the the house is quite small. We were looking at, you know, being able to put,
you know, two or three people in it. In point of fact, we used the ground floor of it for uh for the clerk clerk of the works um office when we were building the new public safety building. H >> because it was free but it was not
suitable. Condition of the building has gone downhill over the years. But you and a similar sort of situation would happen if you said if we did have one of the fire stations you decided was
surplus to fire needs. You need to put offices in there. Um, you know, unless you're going to put cubicles in the equipment bays, you're going to want to move them upstairs. Fire department gets us exemption
because if you're a firefighter, you're supposed to be able-bodied and be able to run up and downstairs. If we open up an area that is accessible to public now, um, for somebody that comes in to get a dumpstick or whatever and say, "Okay, well, now
you've got to go to the second story of a fire station." then you're going to need an elevator there as well. So >> elevators are expensive. >> Yeah. So that that kind of stuff can get expensive. So um yeah, I think at some point we're
probably going to be faced with doing something with an existing fire station, but we're not there yet. >> All right. Um go to scenario 10. the last scenario it's basically this kind of the same as nine but uh finance
committee had discussed numerous times so I wanted to include this in the deck somewhere >> uh the thought of uh basically eliminating um mechanics um paid for by the town and uses the
evil word of outsourcing or was that >> said bless you >> oh bless you Alex thank you um is that an advantage or disadvantage. >> That's that it's a pro because it's the last item. So, this one I I would uh as opposed to dealing with some of the
other items on this, I think we should list the pros and cons of um I I know it's I'm not saying it the best way, but effectively outsourcing the mechanics >> because this has come up numerous times. I heard it one uh meeting by a member uh
at the senior center um raised the question uh it's come up numerous times because if we outsource it then we don't have to build the building for it. We don't have to you know have have the staff and um you know or or if we're
doing something like this we should have a regional mechanics thing where we're working with other towns and sharing the cost. So, if we could maybe do it as a two-parter, um, one, do pros and cons eliminating and and two, pros and cons of trying to
do some type of regional um, thing with it. I don't know. I'm not saying that the best way. There's a lot of people with hands up. Well, you know, the the first thing that as far as eliminating the mechanics and saying, "Okay, we're going to outsource." And indeed, a lot of stuff does get
outsourced. Um, a lot of the specialized equipment like the fire trucks need to be have be sent out. Um, and I think one of the the closest place to do a firetruck repair is in Milford.
Um, the uh we've got three mechanics down there that work 40 hours a week and they're not hanging around drinking coffee. So figure out what it costs per
hour for mechanics and in the private sector and compare that to the salary and benefit costs of the employees and even the debt payment on the mechanics bay portion of this building. And I think
that would be an interesting calculation. >> And I don't >> we've got a fleet of over a 100 vehicles that are maintained. The other thing that I know from firsthand experience down there is that having your mechanics
right there as things break down, usually at inconvenient times like at 2:00 in the morning in the middle of a snowstorm, you can't get the private sector to get out there except at exceptionally high cost to
start to work on those things. So I think by any scenario, figure out, you know, skilled truck mechanic per hour, figure out how much it costs, multiply that out. We've got, I believe, two mechanics plus a maintenance mechanic.
Figure out what what it would cost per hour, right? Before you go, Greg, let me just throw a a comment. I'm just free thought here, Dean. So, if we were to uh let's say we sold all of our equipment
u did a capital let's say we we we did a bond to purchase all brand new equipment and and magically they don't take 9 years to be you know made by hand in some island in the middle of the Pacific
and they can all appear at the same time. Um, and I would imagine like a car, these these this equipment would come with warranties at least for a year or some type of mileage on it. And if we reset the whole
fleet and costed it out, would that purchase exceed and also we'd get rid of all the redundant vehicles because we wouldn't need them because we have brand new machines. Then in theory, we wouldn't need the mechanics. We'd have warranties. We have brand new equipment.
We have a smaller fleet. And so that would be that would be like a option B versus maintaining old equipment and having mechanics working 40 hours a week. So first off,
>> we're talking about spending 30 plus million dollars already with the bill. >> Yeah. I first off the thought of the length of time to purchase all of that equipment and the bond payment on that. Something similar was done back in the 1980s. They
bought all brand new Mac trucks and but they still had to be maintained. It's not just the stuff that breaks down, but it's maintenance and then figuring out where that that equipment has to go to get maintained.
what kind of warranty you get on them and you end up having an even even age fleet which all gets old at the same time. >> Yeah, that would be a problem. Um eventually you've locked yourself in that okay in 17 12 years you end up
having to replace your entire fleet once again which is kind of why the police department they try to rotate and replace like three cruisers a year so that you've always got some new stuff and some older stuff you know I don't know that
>> everybody everybody's got thoughts here Dean so >> yeah pros and So roll. >> So I think a con is you end up losing control. >> You know, as Dean said, you have a mechanic, something breaks
during the day, if they go, "Oh, I can do that. I can fix that in an hour. It's the vehicle's back up and running, back doing what it's supposed to be doing." So getting rid of all the equipment, buying all new ones. I no,
you know, when you say the police department, the fire department, all at once was buy all new equipment. It it doesn't work that way, right? You look at any like a major airlines, they're not buying all new planes because it's, as we can see, it's it these all have to be phased and cycled and everything else.
I I think having probably having the mechanics I know how much it is. I just had to get a repair done to on a tire pressure monitoring system for four tires and it's over $500. So, you know, the parts probably didn't cost a hundred bucks, right? But that's the reality.
And a mechanic right now, if you bring it into into a shop to get it done is starting at $100 or or above per hour. So, you know, it's I just think it's better to have our own in-house mechanics as much as we can
to service our equipment. >> So, to summarize some of what I've heard, it sounds like a pro is that there would be a a potentially lower construction cost because you'd have some fewer number of repair bays, and the con would be that it would cost more
to operate because you'd have to be hiring people at professional rates. Good point, Jim. >> Dean, look at David. >> Um, so it's it's uh this touches on some of the things that said it's less efficient and less flexible, too. So, if
a front end loader breaks, we have to put it on a trailer. Somebody has to drive it and drop it off someplace, then drive back, and then two weeks later they said, "Oh, we got to it." And we have to drive there again with the trailer, put it on the trailer, um, and and bring it back. And so that's the
thing, right? What do they do for the thing that takes an hour to fix? Do they go and and sit in the waiting room and, you know, doom scroll? I mean, uh, they can't go back to work here. They can just tell the mechanic, "Oh, the the hydraulics are broken." and then they go
back to work on another piece of equipment. >> Well, if it does break down, you're still putting on a trailer to get it to >> to As much as we all can throw stones at this, I will point out that I think it's the Collins Center and some of their
fleet evaluation tool uh metrics does recommend that you outsource some of your vehicle maintenance. >> Yeah. >> As a best practice. >> Yeah, it's it's a somebody's run set of numbers somewhere. >> Yeah. and and I've had to run those
numbers. So, the magic formula is 2.7. >> Excellent. >> Okay. >> 42. >> No, no, no, no. Yeah, something like that. Here, here's here's what I heard from Dean already that answers the question I
think that we're trying to get at. If we have people who are engaged 40 hours a week, whatever it is, 48 weeks a year, I you know, whatever it turns into full-time,
um fine. That's that's full capacity. If we were hiring people and we could find work for them to do six, seven months a year, but the other five they were sort of sitting around waiting for things to go bump in the
night. >> Mhm. >> Then outsourcing does make more sense. And that's where then the formula comes in. Um the the analysis is, you know, you're already taking some stuff out. That's
because you need it occasionally. That's where outsourcing actually does make better sense than having a full-time person waiting to fix something twice a year. >> So, it's it's it's a capacity management. And it sounds like we've got
three guys who are fully fully engaged. And I apologize for saying guys, I should probably say staff members because in the future we will have a robots. >> Yeah, >> females. Well, yeah. >> So, I have I have a question about that.
Not for you, but just about what you said. Um, when the mechanics do not have a vehicle to work on, are they the ones who are building things like stone walls on
Taylor Road or >> mechanics? There's always There's always vehicles. If not vehicles, then trailers. There's not trailers then. >> Okay. >> There's always something >> other staff that are that are building things in the workshop. >> Yeah. There's a backlog. >> Got it.
>> All right. Um unless there's any other Oh, keep going. >> Oh, no. No. I don't have anything else on this. I thought you were going to say unless there's anything else. That's the end of my scenarios. Um >> Thank you for saying that for me. That's what >> Can I open?
>> No, no, no, no, no, no. So, because this is a record of pros and cons and well, okay, don't do your summary yet, though, because I just wanted to say a couple things about the um
>> what what was removed from the proposal that the DPW building committee recommended and the select board um agreed to pursue a little bit further. Um, so we know that there's no new
garage being constructed in option 4B of the size that would house the winter fleet. There's no wash bay. Maybe sometime in the future. Thank you, Karen, for pointing out that all of these except option one are are not permanent solutions. Um, one of the
conference rooms was eliminated, one of the kitchenetses was eliminated. And then I already mentioned the access between the office space and the mechanic and workshop areas through that that airlock. So all of those have been
removed from the original programmatic need analysis that was done. Um, and then the other thing that I wanted to say is, um, in response to how expensive this is, right? No,
none of us want to spend 25, 30, $30 million on a on a new building. Um, and I know it's really hard to compare the costs because as Greg mentioned, is it, you know, do we have the same number of roads? Do we have the same number of
cemeteries, storm drains, etc. Um, but just looking at the square footage here, what I've seen in other projects that were recently built, recently like 23, 24 is a figure that's about $700 a
square foot. It was, you know, earlier like pre- pandemic when we were getting 300, $350, $400 a square foot. So looking at these square footage price, we are in a place that seems to be just what construction cost is now. So I
don't think that it's accurate to say that it's overpriced. Um we may not think we need all of the things that are here, but the square footage cost is in alignment with with projects. And that's because construction inflation greatly
outpaced that you know 6 to 7% in inflation. Generally in 2122 construction inflation was like 12 to 14%. Much higher >> a grand total of 42% over those years.
>> Thank you for that. But and and that was the one thing that I kept looking at is that um I initially thought that maybe this was the tariffs that the Trump first administration had brought out in 2019.
But it turned out even when he was out of office from 21 uh until the end of 24, the construction uh prices uh stayed high. >> Yep. And so, um, whether or not we hope
that the, uh, new new tariffs of 50% on steel and and other construction materials go away someday in the future, it looks like the construction costs are at this higher price point and are likely to stay there.
That's that's I wish there were some shortcut around that one, but that's just the the economic reality. >> Do I check? Um, which suggests to me, Greg, that one of the cons that should be in in a number of the scenarios is
that it's it's it's going to cost a lot more to complete the whole project if we delay half of it for, you know, 10 15 years. Um, you know, we I I'm I'm fine
with accepting that, but if we're if we're listing pros and cons, it's a it's a good one to make sure we >> The only scenario that anyone talks about and where prices might come down >> is if we have another great depression, >> right? Right. Yeah. Yeah.
>> I'm not rooting for >> No, but it would lower our taxes. >> No, it wouldn't. Uh if it's okay if I can um just have some summarization thoughts. Um the main
reason why I didn't want to focus on cost on this discussion is I feel like it distracts. >> Um the one thing we say for certain is that we don't know what the cost is. Um we inflation was very high the last few
years. Inflation's down. Prices have come down in some areas. Prices remain high in others. uh we know that uh investment in the country is uh much higher than it was in the last couple years and that's going that
should have a positive impact on a lot of things. We don't know what we don't know about the future. And what we're trying to do here instead of and from my perspective, instead of picking dollars and numbers and and trying to decide if
that's they're right or wrong, is to just factually go through what I feel were the most common uh discussion points when this came through the last time, which were um scenario one through
five. uh what building design um should be uh presented uh that meets the needs and and accepted needs of the staff and the town. So I feel like in
scenarios one through five all are presented um there's been been vetted by a street and the other scenarios do nothing use Conan buy a piece of property move the staff rent lease
um don't have mechanics um we've discussed them um right or wrong um pros and cons um I think we've discussed them thoroughly we've shown on both both sides of the of the the you
know made the points on both sides of and were not making a decision if they're right or wrong. We're just stating what happens. I'm not I have not I'm not aware of any other thing that came up uh when this went through the
town last time as either an objection, a thought, or a suggestion um as an alternative. And I'd like to close by saying if if we miss something, this would be the time to say it because I
really want to focus on other budget items between now and town meeting. And I'd just like to reference this whenever we have more information. And whenever finance committee comes to a decision on what we support, what we don't support, or how we support it, uh we'll reference
this meeting and then the town can listen to this this this meeting and hear the pros and cons uh without, you know, without really debating them, just factually talking about them. So, is there anything that anybody has heard
that was brought up as an issue that we didn't cover in these scenarios? All right, I I'm done then. So, yeah, >> I'll uh >> I move to adjurnn. >> Yes. Thank you. >> Yeah. Moved and second to adjurnn. Select board.
>> All in favor say I. >> I. Move to second. Second. I think we're done. Did you call? >> I did. Typos.