Good evening, Hollist. Welcome to the April 13th meeting of the select board. Uh we have a bunch of items to get to this evening and uh we're going to take the something a little bit out of order um uh due to time constraints. So um I
have asked the uh finance committee chair to join us this evening. So we have Dr. Shada here to uh talk to us about a couple things and um basically what I asked him here to just sort of go over uh briefly um obviously he's not speaking on behalf of the finance
committee because there's been no vote taken by that said committee. Um, but there were a couple conversations that I just wanted to make sure that uh everybody here uh understood sort of like what was being discussed here just so that way we can sort of set the lay of the land and see if there's any changes we want to make before we close
the warrant uh for town meeting tonight. So, uh the first thing is uh there was discussion about after we presented the level three budget to the finance committee, there was some discussion um about uh the bottom line numbers. uh if you could just kind of give us a
little clarity like kind of what the discussion was about um on that particular topic. >> Sure. So, so when we look at the budget every year, as you know, when we're we being the entire town, not just the finance committee, um a lot of the assumptions that are made are uncertain
because we don't have the state budget yet. That's primarily the big one that's uncertain. We don't get a final budget from the state till typically July. Um because of that what we traditionally have done on the finance committee side is we tend to leave a little bit of money uh we budget for a slight surplus
very small surplus because we know that there's normal variation in the local aid numbers typically on the order of tens of thousands of dollars um I think last year was like 25 and the year before was like 38 something like that so it's not huge dollars but because of
that uh we tend to try to compose a budget that has about, you know, anywhere between like 50 and $100,000 on it such that if the budget numbers from the state vary in a bad way for us that we
don't have to take any action, right? So the original uh level two budget I guess by our terminology from Frank was balanced to zero as was yours except that as I point out to Frank there was one uh uh inaccurate number in in some
of the assumptions. So when you fix that inaccuracy it actually results in a surplus of I think 44.88 so $4,000. So last Tuesday I presented that budget after going over it with Frank to the finance committee said this is what the level three and level two budgets look
like. Um and there was some consternation on the committee's part about having such a low number on the bottom line. >> Okay. >> There were no and to reiterate your point we took no votes. We took no even discussion of what to do other than there was kind of a general consensus of
it would be nice if we had more on the bottom line because we don't want to get into situation where we have to find money if the state variance is a you know more than $4,000 >> is um so with our financial policies is there any statement about this bottom line or is there anything in the financial policies about this?
>> I don't believe so. I don't believe so. >> Should there be? >> There probably should be. Yes. >> Okay. Um, and the reason I say that is because it's it's good. It would be good to have it there, but as I said, the reason it's not there is because this was the way,
you know, prior town administrator, you know, Paul Leau did it for years. Jeff didn't, you know, wasn't involved in that. But, you know, even Travis would always bias that way. I think it's just because we have, you know, new new town manager. We have a tighter budget this year, things like this. So, so, but yes,
I would be all for codifying in the policies. >> Yeah. Because I think I think what uh you know what I noticed and the reason I sort of wanted to talk about it particularly is because I certainly understand the logic of it. It's just sort of you know I think we're introducing it late in the game in a way
even you know it would have you know we would have made different choices if we had that front of mind. We were working for towards getting as close to a balanced budget as possible. So, um I think my last question here is do you have any um thoughts about where that
should go? And obviously I recognize the committee hasn't discussed it in in earnest. So, you know, is it something where we could say, you know, this particular article is contingent, you know, on that uh on, you know, whether or not the the state aid comes back favorably or
something like that. Is there something like that that you you're leaning towards? I I wouldn't mean I think that well the the homework assignment so to speak that I gave the committee last week when people I wasn't sure how the committee was going to react to that low a number some people would say >> that's fine other I
>> so I was >> uh I wouldn't say surprised but I was you know that became very clear you were at the meeting right it was became very clear that they were concerned about that number >> sure >> so as you recall I gave them the assignment of okay well tell me where we're getting the money from if we're
going to make the bottom line bigger, right? And that's what we're going to discuss tomorrow night. So, I don't really I have some ideas myself >> how to do it in a less painful way, >> but to be honest, I don't want to I don't want to say right now because I want to see what the committee comes up with. >> But I I think, you know, my point would
be is that um we're here too and we gave you a budget and we could have and can look at those things too. And I think that, you know, I would I would ask that in that situation that it gets sort of kicked back to us to sort of say, "Hey, could you and then if we don't have
anything that's that's a different ballgame here, but I think the first thing shouldn't be we have homework." It should be like select board has homework because they just handed a budget with 4500 on the bottom line. That's how I view this. >> Right. And and and to be fair, I'll say right now, if you guys discuss tonight
ways you would want to bolster the bottom line, I'm more than happy to bring that up tomorrow at the finance committee if there are ways you prefer to do it. Um I don't want you to look at this as though we were somehow waiting till late in the game. I didn't have a final, you
know, as I said, we we know the process got delayed a little bit. Um, so, so we didn't get your budget till last Tuesday and that's when I had just worked out that day with Frank that we only had that four 4,000 on the bottom line. I didn't have the final numbers at that point. Okay. >> Um, but that's why, you know, I'm I'm
here today, right? Because if I I will state very clearly, if you guys have suggestions on how to bolster that a little bit, I'd be happy to listen to them or have them bring to the finance committee tomorrow. >> Okay. >> Tina's chopping at the bit to ask a question. So, are you are you >> No, you're not. usually give me that
look when >> when you want to ask do do you have any questions? Uh I just want to make sure we're talking about in the context of historical data too like over the past five ten years. Does this stand out to you as remarkably different when we talk about where we are today with what's
available on the bottom line so to speak? Is this number significantly less than what we've seen in past years? And if so, these would be trends that I would think we would have discussed. I I guess I'm seeing this as a policy conversation moving forward as opposed to a change in the path that we've taken
for FY27. So I think that trends help us. I think policy conversations help us. I think um uh you know to to deliver the level three budget a month ahead of town meeting is is I believe what was requested a year ago by the finance committee. I think we're on track to
accommodate a request to get the the date the budget on the earlier side, not on the later side. Well, Ken's point was is that uh the document that I put forward said the 23rd and we didn't vote on it until the 6th >> even though we had had consensus here. We had didn't have a vote and he he
expected a vote. >> Okay. I think we're all on track though to accommodate the needs of the finance committee uh as you're looking at these. I think that the November budget development process kicks off and that's a that's a fine time to have a policy in place to guide the bud budget
development process moving forward. >> I would put it ahead of that. I would actually say that should be in July when we talk about the financial policies and if we're going to have a pol if we're going to do this, it should be a policy. >> I I hear your concern and I don't disagree. We had Senator the Senate President at the table. We had our state
representative at the table. Uh I believe the Senate President has a firm hand on the state's budgeting process and has so for many years. I believe she has a very strong positive relationship with the town of Hollist and has always been forthcoming uh and open and transparent with us. And so when she
speaks to the budget process at the state level, I have high high confidence and I think we all should. I think we all do. Yeah. >> And there was certainly no mention that the town of Hollist should be cautious or wary in the approach that we were taking in terms of where the state budget would end up. So hear your concerns, but I would see this uh as a
policy conversation for FY28. >> That's my take on it. >> Okay. >> But thank you for bringing the concern forward. >> Thank you, D. Any comments before the next? >> I think it's perfectly reasonable to have a conversation about. So, no worries on my end. >> All right. Um, and moving on because I know your your time is of the essence
here for you. Um, so the capital subcommittee met last Thursday and the recommendation that was made by the is going to be made to the full finance committee from the capital subcommittee is in regards to the feasibility study was $500,000
from the DPW project. The cash from the DP for the DPW project. Is that >> that's the recommendation from the subcommittee to the >> Let me let me clarify. Sure. Sure. We have >> it was not specifically
>> I wouldn't say it was specifically because of the feasibility study. It was because of the total amount of capital that we have in May of which the biggest chunk is the feasibility study. >> Okay. Um the the problem and this is my opinion and was expressed at the subcommittee meeting, right?
>> Problem we have is that we spent many years building up a capital set aside. >> Then we got into the pandemic and we reduced that and we had a couple of tight budget years and we've kind of gotten off track on growing that uh capital set aside like we were supposed
to every year. Sure. Right. >> And again, look at FY27. We're looking at the same which a level, you know, no increase from last year. The problem with that is that uh we are putting increasing demands on free cash.
In the past, we used to put free cash for only two things. Uh topping off stabilization to keep it at the correct funded ratio and the rest would go into capital. And unfortunately, we have more things now. We put 250 into pension stabilization fund. We've used it to
fund some warrant articles, things like that. not bad uses of the money, but that's putting pressure on the amount that's left to go to capital, right? At the same time, we're not growing the capital appropriation, and our capital needs are still the same that they've pretty much always been, which is about
three million or more a year. >> So, what that is now creating, and you guys have discussed this apparently from what I saw, um there were some requests that were moved forward from May to October this year, right? those requests. While
that's an a quote unquote accommodation to help reduce the May budget, it's just putting the problem down to October, right? So, in my opinion, we have to start getting really serious about capital again. And one of the things we have to do, and all the projections that Frank gave me show
that we're going to be scraping the bottom of the policy for the next few years, unless we take some action, either growing the set aside or working to dedicate more free cash to to capital or something along those lines. The conversation about the 500k was
that uh uh there seems to be and was presented to us that the need was 2 and a half million for the feasibility study. that seems like a re the number that seems to be the trend for these them these days and I don't want to speak to that that's a school committee communion school
committee but given that that was the request for 2 and a half million and the total amount of requests we had we looked at that and said okay well part of the problem is we we need to bolster capital in some way because we're we're scraping bottom and since the that
original 7 million was allocated for debt reduction right we essentially did the same thing last October when We took 500,000 you know town took 500,000 used it for the culver that was tied to the DPW but was not the original intent of the 7 million which was debt reduction
right so we made that adaption because it was the right thing to do at the time and it's the same thing here which is when we're looking at this part of me again just my opinion I want to say it over and over so people don't think this is a committee vote this is not a committee opinion
>> but but part of that of the issue is we're now you know you obvious as you know DPW's gone through a whole another phase going to have a whole another vote this May >> y >> and all that. >> So it seems to me that the best way to
shore up capital in the in the meantime is to adjust that debt offset we were going to do and say look we we could afford 7 million when we had project X on the board three years ago. Now we got project Y on the board and times have changed and so we can't put that same
seven million. We can only put let's say six. We do half a million for for capital or whatever number five you whatever. I personally at the meeting and you you weren't there but Frank knows this. I I was I would like to do more actually and I
would have I would have preferred that the scope committee recommend a million. And the reason I say this is because some of the stuff you deferred, I'd rather not defer it and say, "Let's just fix capital this with the money we have." Yes, it changes the DPW debt a
little bit, but remember part of that whole thing with the DPW debt was also to fund some of that debt within the levy, which we aren't going to be able to do right now based on the capital numbers that I see. We were going to have we're going to have no capacity to pay debt from within the levy. So you're kind of robbing Peter to pay Paul if you put more towards debt reduction, but the
original working group plan was to fund some fraction of it from within the levy to reduce the the debt exclusion. So there are all sorts of kind of different financial things at play here. But that's >> okay. U and and I think you know so taking a step back from this this particular part of the conversation and
and thank you that that that helps to understand that. I think what I'm sort of seeing that I'm, you know, and I've I guess I've had a lot of trouble articulating over the years is that you have good ideas that you're bringing to the table that we need to talk about. First of all, we should have these in
the policy discussions that we're having in July. We should be talking about these things. The second thing is is that, >> you know, I don't want you to have to you don't have to do this yourself. The finance committee doesn't have to do it themselves. like why can't we have we need to have mechanisms by which our boards can communicate with each other and try to work through some of these
issues and that's kind of why I invited you here is to sort of get have an opportunity to sort of hear some of these things to see if there's anything we can do and at this stage it's difficult to do those things and these are the conversations we should be having over time together as boards not just
you and me talking at coffee haven which I you know certainly you've you've always been amendable to those things and I appreciate those things but that's not how we're not going to get a lot done in those situations, we still need to have the the full bodies of our boards together to be able to accomplish that. >> Right. And and and I will say this,
okay, there's an agenda item on every FINCOM agenda since I've been chair that says updates from the town manager where Frank gives gives the summary of what happens tonight. So tomorrow he'll sit there and he'll say they talked about this. Sure. >> Talked about this. >> Right.
>> The same thing could happen at your meetings, right? Frank's at our meetings, too. You can have an agenda item on your meetings that says updates from the finance committee. You can say finance committee last talk about just to point out to come in but given that it's tough for me to come in on Mondays. >> I no I I understand that but I mean I think I can't remember the last time
we've had a fincom member come to one of our meetings to be able to to to address or to talk about any of those topics. And that's sort of the part of the thing is it's sort of like we're putting the onus on the partic those particular um those moments when I think there needs to be a more formalized relationship
that we can establish. Not doing it tonight. I'm just sort of put I'm I'm th I'm just saying it out loud because I think what we need to be able to do is to figure out how to address these issues so that we're not doing it at town meeting floor because that's not fair to you. It's not fair to me and it's not fair to the residents. >> Right. And and and look, I I'm not
disagreeing with you whatsoever. I'm just saying that >> in the same way that I make sure that my committee gets updates on what happens at your meetings, >> you could do the same. You could have something where, as I said, Frank is the the glue here. He's at both meetings, right? He could easily give you a
two-minute update or five minute update like he does on our meetings every week saying fin talked about X Y and Z and then if you have issues then we we you know you can raise them to him and he can communicate with us and say let's get together and talk about I mean you and I can always talk but I'm saying you want to have more >> we need we I think we need to have more
formal like committee level conversations at some point and I think we need to figure out how that works. I don't know what it is tonight. We're not figuring it out tonight. I'm just saying that out loud. I mean remember in the old days we had a liaison that would come to your meetings and you had a leazison that would come to ours and that was replaced by the town manager.
>> So that's why I said if if we're if that's the model then Frank is the guy who should be >> leazison are information. They're sharing information. They're not making decisions and we need to have a way to be able to resolve some of these things and have real negotiations between two boards. >> Hey I said >> we'll figure it out. We'll figure we'll
we'll figure it out. We'll figure it out at some particular point. But I know you got to go and I appreciate you taking a few minutes to talk to us. So, thank you so much. >> Hopefully, one of us will be able to make it tomorrow. I really apologize. If not, we'll make sure that we get some, you know, statements or any uh responses to to some. >> Well, as I said, if you have any, you
you know where these issues are now, right? Absolutely. So, if you guys have any feedback from tonight, >> we'll communicate it. We'll we'll communicate that. So, for tomorrow. >> Thank you, Ken. Really appreciate it. Have a wonderful evening. >> You too. We give Ken a moment to >> head up.
>> Matt, welcome. >> All right. Um, so now moving on, we're going to get started with our agenda this evening. So, um, we're going to start off with, uh, Weston and Samson to start discussing uh, we have a presentation about the potential DPW
project. So want to come on up gentlemen and then uh just introduce yourselves so people >> thank you >> who have not been uh paying attention know who's here and uh >> we can get started and does Frank have the presentation
>> to use or are you driving >> I'm going to share my screen >> okay we'll just make sure like while you're introducing David >> yes that hopefully Dave has his uh Dave Steves has permission to share >> his screen for us >> thank Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I'm
David Steves, project architect with Weston and Samson for the DPW project. And with me tonight is Alex Francisco, our project manager. >> So, uh, we have a very brief presentation. Uh, it's just an update on where we are in the process and, uh,
what's happened to date. And, um, let me jump right in. So, I will share my screen. Okay, I think we're good to go. >> Great.
>> All right. So, thank you very much. Um, we >> Oh, yeah. We want to turn just to make sure that the people in the audience I think some of them are here to talk about this, right? Yeah. Presentation thing. >> Oh, perfect.
>> Oh, yeah. Don't break it. >> All right. So, here we are for the 63 Arch Street site for the consolidated public works project. Just a quick outline of the agenda which is we have uh just recently submitted the schematic
design submission several weeks ago and it was pencils down for us to give those documents to our independent cost estimator who put together uh an associated uh cost for the project. Um I
would like to go through some uh the status of the design but also some design updates since the end of schematic design as as the design has progressed since then over the last few weeks and then just touch on the summary of costs and then next steps.
So here's our schematic design submission. And this is the cover and you can see the facility at the top and what it is comprised of essentially is a very actually comprehensive uh set of documents. So we had a number of
reports. We did some significant uh site investigation including the soil uh characterization and sampling and testing geotechnical test pits and borings hazardous material investigation in the building and I won't go through all these but you know the hydrant flow
test etc um just to do our due diligence of what's going on at the site also full schematic set of drawings of the civil full architectural set and industrial equipment set of drawings and then narratives for our uh design all all of
our design disciplines from civil, structural, HVAC, mechanical etc. All those were assembled and put together and we have that cost estimate which we'll review tonight as well. So just to quickly touch on uh for an example, this
is the geo cover of the geotechnical report. You can see the existing outline of the existing site which is the highway uh barn garage. Um and we had done an over overlay of borings you can
see in red bullet points as well as test pits and the town facilitated that by helping us out with an excavator and operator uh to get uh uh six test pits done as well as six borings throughout the site. We did an overlay of the
existing uh of the proposed facility to make sure that we had some test data for the subsurface conditions where the buildings were to be located. And that was put together in a comprehensive uh report. And this is just an example that
uh identifies the subsurface strata conditions. And it's actually all very good uh information that we received which was that there's no ledge or uh oversized cobbles or boulders that would need to be removed. It's essentially
removal of uh existing fill down to either native or to a depth where we can uh just put in structural leveling fill and then uh typical uh 4ft depth spread footing. So not deep foundations, piles
or wraps, rammed aggregate pier type uh foundation. So that was very good. Also um just want to mention quickly on the soil investigation uh we did have one identifiable reportable condition but um
it was very minor within the footprint of the building actually uh that we are planning to remediate prior to construction. But the news was very good actually on uh what we could have anticipated to be uh somewhat hazardous conditions uh in the soil.
>> I'll speak on that Frank. We'll have a memo out regarding that very soon within a week or so. >> Thank you. >> Yep. So this is the schematic design uh site plan that was sub uh put together a couple of weeks ago and subsequent to
that submission um the town uh James Ke as well as DPW staff had met with the abutters to address some of the concerns with the neighboring abutters on the project. So one was the uh you can see highlighted there is the sto proposed
storage canopy at the uh southern edge of the site which was too kind of visually prominent uh uh in the neighbor's perspective. Um another >> David sorry >> y please >> sorry not to you're on a roll but would
you mind just um sort of just for points of reference like where is Arch Street where is the rail trail? >> Of course. Frank, that type of thing. >> Yes. So, Arch Street is at the page bottom. You can see Can is my pointer show up on the >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. So, Arch Street comes down and
this is near from this intersection is the existing entrance to the existing public works. Um, so this is Art Street at bottom page. The rail trail is at top page. So, we're right in between those two. Thank
you. as data points. Um, okay. So, we have the we're talking about the canopy which was very prominent. It's 150 feet uh in length. There's significant amount of of equipment that needs to be protected and stored uh for an adequate
uh facility. Another one of the issues that was raised was uh in the parking area. You can see at the lower site and we had talked about it before is that we considered that to be used for the employee staff and public parking. One
of the concerns was that that's a significant loss of the green space and some existing blueberry bushes that are there and the natural terrain uh area. Um the other concern was uh some visual
screening uh to the other adjacent butter on the northern side where the operation in the salt shed and during a storm event the site was open to that operation. So, I'd like to just run through uh so
that was the schematic design uh site plan that was issued a couple of weeks ago, but since then we've updated the design to mitigate some of those concerns, which is one here is a reconfigured uh open storage canopy
structure which is slid towards the rail trail uh so westerly um on the site and that area to those two squares below the canopy you can see is relocated material storage bins. So
those are lower. They still provide uh some screening for for sound and visual because it's a it is a bit of a balance that you don't want to be open to a public works operation but you don't want to also have structures you know uh
right in your face. Uh so having the smaller structures there work well with the site configuration and you can see the natural terrain um works such that the new location of the canopy is really tucked behind a natural burm and some mature trees in
that location. You can also see on the lower right hand corner of the site where we had reconfigured the parking area and reduced the parking uh significantly for the DPW. But uh we mitigated that by
um locating some parking some pull in direct pull-in parking directly in front of the administration portion of the building. So we're able to buy back a few of the spaces. Um so we still have adequate uh number of spaces for the DPW
operation. And the last thing uh we're looking is for continuous stockade fence uh along continuous continuously along that adjacent property line to the abuter to screen and shield the noise and sound
and uh the sight lines uh from the DPW. So you can see these. This is not a trick uh quiz, but they look identical, but I'm going to identify uh some of the differences. It's the old one on top and the revised configuration on the bottom.
So, the new site plan is in the lower site and you can see there the revised canopy for instance, the updated parking and added green space for a potential playground and then the added uh fencing uh along
the property line. So, here's the design of the proposed uh DPW building, and there are six main components. There's a townwide fueling, the vehicle and equipment storage garage. There's the main entrance being
identified there. You have a two-story administration building uh wing that has the water services offices, town SCADA, town engineer that's anticipated, employee support spaces, locker rooms, muster room training, and customer
service and public lobby. Here uh number four is the water and highway shop and all the support uh facilities for the water shop vehicle and equipment maintenance garage and at the end uh a driveth through vehicle and
equipment washbay. So here's the schematic design that's proposed. You can see this is a bird's eye view of the massing of the revised uh site and layout. So I just wanted to now kind of jump to the building and just quickly go through
some of uh you know working with the DPW some of the changes we've made which are kind of critical to the design but as we hone in on the final design here uh very important to where we are. So the first thing is um in the vehicle maintenance we had deleted uh a bay to shrink that
driveth through deleting that driveth through maintenance bay to reduce the space of the of the overall facility. We had reconfigured some of the shop spaces and uh moved them around and flipped these support
spaces, the water lab and material storage uh for the high value uh equipment and materials to the other side of the shop to back up to the mezzanine to make the mezzanines more consistent. We also added a single user
public toilet room off of the uh public lobby for uh public's use as well as um town employees that are stopping there to fuel. So there's a restroom to use. And one of the major revisions is we
deleted the fire apparatus storage bay for that apparatus to be housed here in this vehicle storage garage. the impact actually was quite significant to the uh material storage for the facility. Um and so that has been eliminated along
with the garage door and I'll just touch on that quickly. So, we had gone through a comprehensive coordination effort with the town going through uh several site visits of uh getting all of their equipment documented, measured,
photographed, gone through to know what type of equipment they have, the size of all the equipment, where it is available for use and efficiently located on site, as well as a graphic layout of uh what we use as a planning tool for the for
the layout of the facility. So, I just wanted to show this quickly and all those pieces came come together to show how we're utilizing the space in the building. It's not just a big building. You can see it's using essentially every square inch of space uh available. Um
you can see in the equipment on the left, the outdoor open canopy vehicle and equipment storage. We're double stacking things in those storage bays and putting them in there uh very efficiently and effectively storing
them. You can see we're also storing in the upper right hand corner adjacent to the salt shed for the sander bodies that are going to be stored along uh adjacent to the salt shed. Also in the vehicle uh storage garage,
you can see the angled parking with the center drive aisle. So if for a very efficient operations where the DPW can pull out any piece of equipment or vehicle without jocking or moving others out of the way for the most part. One
important thing here is the DPW wanted to store uh all the plow blades uh adjacent to the trucks which is very efficient operationally and so we we're providing that room for that to happen and also utilizing that space uh where
the fire apparatus had been stored for equipment storage. One last point uh we also are using space in the building. So you can see here for instance on the left side of the building we're storing um two large pieces of equipment in the
wash bay. Uh that's you know a little bit of a inefficient for operation but we're again using uh all square feet uh uh all the available square feet that we can. Also storing one vehicle in the a
maintenance bay as well as two uh pickup trucks in the water shop. So, this is the updated plan. It looks the same at a glance, but it's actually very different. This is a smaller uh maintenance with the drive-thru now, you know, dropping something off on a
wrecker with the drive-through bay uh enters into the vehicle storage garage. Uh the reconfigured shop, you can see the consolidated uh support spaces together. Now you can imagine the mezzanine is now consistent and uh
cohesive above that space. We added incorporated the single user toilet and then the updated uh garage bay. So this is a view from the uh entrance driveway entrance for the proposed new
facility. I'd like to jump into the cost. So along with that schematic design, we our independent cost estimator put together a comprehensive design uh estimate for a consolidated facility here at 63 arch.
The total square footage was 40,375 square feet as it ended up uh essentially on target to where we were. Uh this will also includes a townwide fueling facility, the salt shed with attached brine tanks and canopy coverage
uh to protect those tanks, the on-site equipment storage canopy that we've talked about as well as a continuous modular block retaining wall along and we can uh talk about that a little bit if you'd like. Um we incorporated that wall to make the
viable footprint area of the site uh amendable to house the total operation of the new facility. So that's uh required. You can see the snippet of uh the detail of the plan just to show uh
the level of of design that was uh developed to this point to really hone in on what the actual costs are. We had all wall types identified fire uh fire rated walls um all assemblies. You can
see all the equipment laid out within those industrial spaces. Uh doors, windows, um finishes all identified for the uh schematic design cost estimate. So cutting to uh the cost um here we are
at 63 Art Street, the consolidated facility. This is the breakdown of the costs as summarized by our estimator. I put it together about $9.5 million for site costs uh which is significant. Fuel island salt shed and the canopy each about one and a
quarter to one a.5 million. And then the DPW building itself about 25 a.5 million for a total direct construction cost of the facility and site of 38.8
8 million almost 30 38.9 million. Along with that, uh, we've often talked about and we're continuing to carry the updated soft costs for the project and I've outlined some of the larger items that are included in the soft costs. It
includes a 6% con construction contingency which is uh $2 and a4 million but it uh includes A&E fees, construction administration, the OPM fees and miscellaneous owners costs, temporary facilities, tests and
inspections, legal fees, moving costs, etc. We are very comprehensive in capturing all the costs because we don't want to be caught short once we're into the project. make sure we have enough to to complete the project.
So that results in a uh so it's about $9.8 million of anticipated soft costs. So for our estimated total project costs of 48 and 3/4 million and just to touch on how that compares
to what we've presented in the past, we had at our last goound put together a range uh because our estimates are based on historic prices where now our independent cost estimator is based on actual costs from what is
happening in the industry right now. So we have historic prices that we extrapolate out. So there's a little bit of escalation guesswork that we uh came up with uh a low range and a high range within that uh
estimated guesswork and the low range was 47 uh and 3/4 million roughly to a high range of 49 and 3/4 million and as it would work out. Sorry,
we have our the schematic design independent estimate came in right in between. So it's 48 and $34 million. Anticipating that we have the previously allocated project funding of 6.5 million
leaves a total remaining estimated project cost of 42 uh 42 million uh 42 and one4 million. Sorry about that. Just the quick outline of where we are. Uh this whole process is really
essentially four phases from the feasibility study to the site selection which are passed you can see in gray and green respectively to the design of the facility and then construction we're anticipating. So we're about halfway through design right now. We are right
here uh anticipating May town meeting to go for funding for the approval of the project and the next steps that's the May 2026 town meeting. Uh we will in fi be finalizing the
design with an anticipated go out for bid in November of this year and uh once the project gets a awarded after bidding we can anticipate a 18 to 20month duration of construction. That's my presentation. Um happy to take
any questions. >> Yeah, we have uh we're going to have some board questions and then uh I think I'm imagine there's going to be some questions from the room. So, we'll probably >> okay, >> open this up a little bit to allow people to uh ask other questions. Um, obviously, this is the first time that we're seeing all this information, so
we're trying to >> process it a little bit here, too. >> Y >> um um I'm >> quite all right. It's the the schematic design was formally submitted a week ago, so it's kind of hot off the press, so not >> Excellent. >> understood. Um so um uh one question I
have is could you go into a little bit more detail about the 9.5 million for the site um development costs? I mean does that include the retaining wall? Like what goes into that particular uh cost are we talking about here? >> So um there's a significant amount of
site regrading uh to make uh uh level pad area. So it's site regrading which is the uh removal of the burm and the high portion of the site um at the southern end of the site. The retaining
wall excavation and soil disposal is included there. the retaining wall itself and the construction of that as well as some I didn't I didn't point it out but it's also includes some smaller retaining walls on the downs slope side because as
you know we're kind of carving a a shelf out of a sloped hill. Um it includes the building foundations uh as well as all the subsurface upgrades of catch basins. Uh and >> is that like demolition being there too >> in the site? Uh, I don't believe so. I
am not sure about that. Uh, Ben. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> And there's a full breakdown and cost estimate that was shared if you ever want to get really into the details of each specific item >> looked at as well. >> Um, and then, um, one other question
that I have, I'm sure these two will have some questions. I mean, there's more questions, but I'm just trying to process everything. So, >> um, we talked about there was a minor soil condition. I mean, I don't need you to get like super detailed in that, but could you just sort of talk about a little bit of like what that is or
what's going on there? Is it like is, >> you know, is it uh is it something is it contained? Is it something like what kind of what do we >> It's just above reportable conditions. So, it's actually very minor. Okay. >> But it is above reportable conditions. So, we need to address it.
>> Sure. Uh it was located in the highway garage says we uh remove some of the floor slab and so uh we're expecting now to remove it, remediate it. We expect it to be because we took a lot of samples uh that is very localized and contained.
So we're going to cut a hole in the slab or we're going to propose uh to the town that we do that >> basically big enough for back to get in there take out what we need. Okay. >> Yeah, maybe 4x4 or 55.
>> Okay. All right. Okay. Um I'm gonna open it up to the board now. Uh Tina, do you have any questions, comments? >> Yeah, I have a couple actually. So, the culvert repair that's underway now, that was originally a part of site prep when we were considering 63 Arch Street, understanding that that work would need
to be done for this to be a viable site. Yes. Is that a fair statement? >> That is a fair statement. Yes, it is. Yep. >> All right. Uh, and then when you talked about um not finding ledge, not finding boulders, when you talked about the barely noticeable or barely reportable
but reportable one release, good news that there wasn't more, those have already impacted the project costs that you've put up on the board. You wouldn't because this is a week old. Yes. >> So, we're not going to further refine some of those contingency costs or some of those um project costs based on that
newish information. Those are already captured in here. Those are already captured. Yep. >> Okay. Um and then could you put the timeline back up if you would? >> One thing I would offer on the
contingency. We do have a design contingency in here that will reduce as we advance the design. So we expect uh that that will compensate some of the costs that are currently being carried if that makes sense.
>> Yes. Okay. on this timeline, where are there moments or points where you'll seek additional resident feedback? Are are they on this timeline or would you say you're at the end of resident feedback in terms of design? Because the design is still a somewhat iterative process. There'll be changes and updates
as you go along. So, could you just speak to when residents of others might have the opportunity to provide input or feedback? the the design is not anticipated to have whole scale changes at this point. They're actually very
minor and they'll be changes but as I would refer to them as tweaks at this point >> um because the so uh the town and DPW and James has has met with the abutters. So I don't know if we're anticipating
any further. >> Okay. >> I think they may continue a conversation and our um you know design process is always uh you know accommodating to any discussion but um there's nothing on the books. Okay. >> Right now.
>> Okay. And then how about moments for cost updates either to this board or through the facilities manager and the town manager to this board. Could you just talk to that on the timeline when the board will be receiving anticipated updates? >> We have two cost go ahead.
>> Exactly. So the design development is the next phase. >> Okay. >> Uh we should have our design development cost estimate. Okay. >> By I want to say early fall. So let's say end of September, Octoberish. >> Um and then we'll have construction
documents cost estimate in November. >> Yeah. >> And we'll share that with the committee. >> Okay. Thank you. I might have another question, but I'm okay for now. Thanks. >> Dam covered one of mine. I'm curious about the uh the adjustment to the visual separation layer that you put between the facility potentially and the
abuing residencies, etc. Can you talk a little bit more about that and just kind of like what the changes were fiscal impact and what the nature of the separation is? I'm sure there people here would be curious who maybe didn't hear all of it or didn't touch the >> drift. Okay, so there are are are two separations. One is on the southern end
of the site where we have which is uh one of the reasons why it was placed there is the open canopy structure. So um I can speak a little bit more in >> scroll I can scroll to that. Sure. >> Uh
yes. So you can kind of see it here because those updates have been incorporated into this. Um, okay. So you can you can see that the uh canopy wall one it was lowered. It was
higher than this. And so that's still one of the finetuning things we're coordinating knowing all the equipment. Make sure it fits. So we're not hitting the structure but we're going to make it as low as we can. We have shifted that uh uh over 10 to 15 feet or thereabouts
towards the rail trail. The natural terrain and I'm looking at the kind of the page north area far end of the site. >> The natural terrain continues up because this this we're actually carving out a
shelf into the side of this hill. So the hill continues up past the um the the canopy. So uh for the predominant length of it there it'll be covered by the natural terrain of the burm mature trees
uh we are also considering some infill uh landscaping or arborvites or things that can add a natural screen uh in front on onto the back side of the canopy. Adjacent to that um we have the
lower um uh material storage bins uh which will just be uh surrounded by uh a fence and some natural landscaping on the other side. uh the fencing that we're talking about uh is not shown in
this rendering but I can go to a you can see I essentially I guess here would be the >> so that fence uh we're looking at an 8 foot high stockade fence so it's a wood
natural will weather will become very you know much part of the landscape um and that's what we had talked about with the DPW they thought was most appropriate. >> Yeah. Excellent. Just wanted to make sure that people had a chance to see it. And would you mind pointing out on the map here just so
>> Yeah. So that that uh fencing uh extends from the far edge of the new uh configured parking area. So it cuts across in between the parking area and the retained open space green space and
runs along the abuing parcel to the backside and hooks all the way around to the far corner of the DPW site. >> Great. Thank you. >> Yep. >> That's all for me, Mr. Chair. >> Okay. Um, one other question. So you
mentioned that there's like a design estimate like you're doing. Did there there's further design that's going >> more refined as we go. So the next phase so right now we just completed the schematic design. Okay. >> The next phase after town meeting would be design development um honing in on
further details of the building. So it's just a more refined design package with specifications and our independent cost estimator will take those documents and he'll refine his cost estimate. Um so I
I guess then um so like you know some people were talking about things like might have been you who said it was like value engineering and things like that. Are we looking at like are there things like that taking place in that particular phase where we're saying like you know this is the right elements to use or have we kind of gotten past that?
>> No we haven't gotten past that not at all. Um one of the things is that we have uh on systems like the mechanical system and the structural system those are all like narratives right now. So all of that information is going to become drawings. So it's going to become
real sizes of steel, you know, and uh mechanicals. So >> electrical system. >> Yeah. So it will all become uh very tangible and that's uh you know a a design review process that's continuous.
Sure. with, you know, cost efficiency, >> making things operationally and also meeting the uh the energy goals of the town that they've set. >> And um you know, we also talked about um potential escalators like what is the assumption that we're using as an
escalator for the for the project like that? I think we talked about like I think it was like 5% >> previously or is it >> Well, that was Yeah, we had which was Weston and Samson. Yes. our independent cost estimator um kind of bakes in
escalation b >> into the into the >> into his number. >> Okay. >> So, it's really it's more he doesn't pull it out as a line item like we do because our information is years old. So, we have to say well in 25 it would have added this much and 26 adds this much and
>> so his is baked in but escalated out to the fourth quarter of 26 to to bid. >> Okay. So, you won't see a line item that specifies that, but it's in it's in it is included. >> Okay. Okay. And then, um I I think last
question and then I'm going to um if you don't mind, I'm going to open it up to the because I'm think there might be some questions for the public. I had seen a couple uh >> come in through the chat. Um and um my uh just lost my last question, >> but I was trying to answer that. Um but
um it it did you have >> I'm still working on it. I will have another question. >> I probably will have another question. But um what I'll do is I'll I'll open it up um while I forget my question. It's uh it's evening. It's not even nine o'clock yet. I'm already forgetting things. Um so um what I'm going to do is
I'm just going to kind of see if people have questions. There might there's been a couple in the chat, but I'll kind of go from the the room to the chat, etc. Um would if possible, Frank, if you could move your microphone over there, so if there's somebody in the room who wants questions, they have um like a
space to attend and then we can bring a chair and something like that. Yeah. Um just to make sure that we can do that. Um and then anyone who has questions or comments, if you could just make sure you just give us your name and address um for the record so people we can have
that. So I'll start in the room. Does anyone here in the room have any questions or comments at this time? And also there will be you know certainly emails and things like that. So if you have you think of something later we can certainly get you an answer with us. So come on up. just uh give us your name and address and your question
or comment. >> Um my name is Laura Godet. I live at 92 Arch Street. >> Hi Laura. >> So the culvert is at the base of my driveway just to give you a location. >> Gotcha. >> Um and my concern well I have a concern about
what will the bulk of the building appear when you're in the neighborhood? Because right now I don't look out and see a giant building. Will I look out and see a giant building? You will see a two-story building. >> I will see it.
>> You will see it. Sure. >> Because right now it's very screened by trees and I don't see anything. >> Wow. >> Hardly. >> What was your address again? >> 92 Arch. >> 92 Arch. >> I I'm I'm at the culvert that's being repaired. >> We are maintaining um the existing um
kind of sighting of >> Okay. where the existing um buildings are located. So the sighting of the building will be very similar. >> Okay. >> Um so there are not in the in the foreground to the facility. There are
not mature trees that are being removed. >> Okay. >> Um but it is a two-story building. >> Yep. >> It will um be amendable and fit into the scale and size of the neighborhood. >> Um >> Okay. >> Yeah. Um and the new parking lot which
is my major concern. How many spaces is it? >> It is been reduced to 23 spaces. >> Okay, that >> that makes me feel much better. When at what point in the discussion did it become a public parking lot? And my
concern there is because people will park for the rail trail and unless you can point out to me where the entrance through the rail trail will be without being through people's yards which you know right now if I enter the rail trail
I am going through Chris's yard. Chris is very nice because it's little it's just a few people who walk up and you know but that's not what it'll be if that's a public parking lot. That will be people trucking their bikes and their
carriages and their kids and you know >> when did that happen? >> Okay. When I when I say uh it for the public and staff parking that is for public that are visiting the public works. >> You like when you go get your sand and you drive up and you park and you run in
to get your sand. >> So it and it's a very actually a very low use maybe one >> maybe two people a day but or less. Right. And that's what it is now. I mean, it's non-existent. But >> my fear was that if you are suddenly
going to put a 45 space parking lot, >> people would fill it. >> People would fill it. >> I got >> build it and they will come. >> I think one of the thing we've talked about is gating it during non-b businessiness hours so that it wouldn't become like a because I think we've heard similar concerns about this uh access to Lake Wr. you know, just
parking there, not having to pay the sticker or show your sticker and then walking down to the >> Y >> to the lake via Pleasure Point. Um, so we talked about, you know, hopefully that being a simple fix. >> And and one other thing, too, is that we're talking about like sort of cutting it in almost like a shelf. Wouldn't that kind of like look lowered a little bit
from where the the current footprint is, if I'm thinking about it correctly? >> You are thinking about it correctly. >> So, that might that might impact. So, you know, to your point about like what is the sight lines going to be if it's lowered a little bit? Even though it might be a taller building, it might kind of look similar in the sense that like you're not going to see like
driveway going up. You might see something flat but the those building there. So it might kind of give you a similar look if I'm thinking about it the right way. That's what it sounds like. >> And we have the mills in the neighborhood. Yeah. >> So that's sort of big industrial space, but >> I don't know. This is this is different.
>> It's it's a change. It's certainly true. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you, Lauren. >> Thank you. Um when we just like pull from the uh the chat. There was a chat question if you could if you have it. >> We've got a few. Okay. So um
>> uh I think we may have uh just hit this one already. Uh from 89 Arch. Why is there proposed public parking? Is it for the public access to the building? We have never had public parking at the DPW. So I think we we covered that. But Laura, if if not, feel free to chime in. Um, >> and with that, there's no intent to
place a blue public parking sign at this location. No, we wouldn't be labeled as such. Okay, we have that on Exchange Street >> for rail trail access. Um, but there wouldn't be parking signage here. >> Right. Strictly DPW. >> Public in the sense that it would be people who are doing from the public
doing business at the DPW as opposed to somebody who just parked there for other purposes. >> Exactly. >> Okay. >> Uh, so one other from um, Carol Sulken. Will there be anything in place to block the view of the fuel tanks from Arch Street?
>> Um, well, the fencing that we talked about, which is really uh continuous. >> Can you point out where the fuel tank is, just so we can kind of get that? >> That's a good idea. Thanks, >> I think it's Yeah. So, it's right there. And then the red the red lines there are
going to be the the fencing a limit of the fencing that surrounds the parking. So, so they might be able to see maybe the canopy, but it's not going to be the entire >> So, those are the tanks and they're surrounded by a fence. >> Yeah. >> Uh, as well as the uh property line fencing.
>> The canopy is over here adjacent to the building. >> Okay. I meant a canopy in the sense that's the fuel canopy. >> This is the fuel canopy. >> Oh, so it's by the building anyway. So, >> 14 foot high. >> Okay. >> But it's part of the building anyways, >> right? >> Okay.
um in the room. Anybody else in the room have any questions or comments at this time? Sure, come on up. Uh the the woman behind you actually >> you can battle it out. It's fine. >> Charlie Roberts, 65 Art Street. Um so more to kind of to your point saying
about how it's going to look. I mean, at the end of the day, we understand it's been there for a long time. We bought houses next to the DPW, got that. Um but it is a res, you know, it is a residential area. it is an industrial use as I, you know, mentioned in my my email from that. Um, it's it fits in a
lot better now. Like I understand it's not in great shape, but I I get that. But to your point, I I disagree that, you know, you've got some green space out front, you got trees out front, you've got the bushes there that kind of blend it in, you got the big open green space, um, you know, next to that. And
then the same thing as you go down, there's a lot of trees. And the same thing with our natural buffer on the outside from that. You know, it's a smaller one-story building and from that now we're putting a much bigger higher building in and we're stripping a lot of that stuff away on on all the side
around. Um my understanding and my you know the town obviously looked at a lot of options as as everybody here knows you know at nauseium over many many years and you know the town voted to end up back here but with the understanding or or there needed to be the realization
that you know this wasn't a great spot for a DPW to start with right we're at the bottom of a of the of a residential neighborhood the trucks the way they have to come in out are going past you know multiple residents you know you got the issue with that we're dealing with, you know, from that. And so, you know,
this this is, you know, like, yeah, it's not going to be great. I know we've made some compromises, you know, from that. Obviously, we can talk about the cost completely, you know, separately from that, but we've now got this massive industrial building. Like, if this was being done privately, everyone would be
laughed away from the table, right? If I was that if I owned that and I had my landscaping business there and I came to the town and said, "Hey, I want to do this. My my business is taking off. you would kick me out, you know, it I think I'm right. I mean, it's a, you know, so,
you know, we need to as a town, you know, hold ourselves to similar standards, you know, from that. Just because it's a town and town owned land, does that mean we can treat it differently than we would, you know, someone as a private business? Um, so that's my I have other concerns that we
can talk about and, you know, natural, you know, canopy and stuff that's, you know, going to be taken down or not. And obviously, there's personal issues as you know obviously is having about 900 linear feet of being of abuing the property you know from that that it's
you know fairly significant impact to me you know but as I said I bought the house there 15 years ago I knew the DPW and we like the DPW as a name like that's you know I'm not I'm not against a deeper you know they I leave for work and then I come back and they're not
there they're not noisy the one issue I do have when you talk about that with that buffer that was being removed moved and maybe slowly coming back. But it's like now, you know, just talking personally, you know, the building was there and it acted as a buffer. Everything came in and out of the
building on that side and access was on that side. Now everything is being directed at my house. So everything has to go through the building, come out, you know, adjacent to where we live. And so now we got at night, you know, or during storms and everything else like that, we got the lights and everything
else coming from that. We've now got every single truck that's coming in and out the DPWs coming out down that end. Whereas before, you know, everything was down at the other end, you know, from that. And that's why it's so important to have that, you know, with this industrial use to try and have that keep
that natural, you know, vegetation and natural berm in there. And you know, I know you said it's sloping up, but when you look at the grade in there, it is similar to what you have shown on the topo, but it's it fills out then there's a lot of dips and it's it's kind of a bit of a weird area. And then as it
flows down, you know, to the side, you know, it's the same thing. It's completely exposed in the end there as all the vehicles, you know, kind of come come around, you know, from that. So, I think there's a little bit more of an effort that I would hope we could see and I have some some ideas and um you know from that that happy to to share
offline. But I think the the biggest thing is you know you know this large expensive building that we're trying to put back on a site that really isn't designed for both water, you know, and highway. You know, from that it's always going to be a struggle and a fight to
try and get everything in there. So people just have to have the understanding and realiz real realization we can't have everything that we want because if we'd gone to cross street and I know we're not going there you know we could have had everything we wanted right and we could have had a much bigger site but you know this is just one of the compromises we
have to make in addition to budget you know and understanding what the budget is it's a massive project it's a massive cost I mean you know when I you know it's trying to look put up a similar building you know in New Jersey right now the costs you know are not not this
extreme, you know, from that and maybe we need to re relook at how that building looks. You know, it's quite segmented and, you know, there could be maybe slightly way less expensive ways to to look at that um you know, from it and how that could be fitted out. But it's it is and obviously this is the you
know, I've heard from in town, I know you guys have heard from town just the cost is is incredibly expensive for for what it is. Um and again just the size of it on the size of lot in the location it is it just doesn't seem to to jive too much. >> I don't want to assume your intent with
your comments. Are you I think I understand you asking to be to remain engaged with the design process. >> Oh absolutely 100%. >> How has it been going okay to point to to this point? Do you f find that you are being heard with what you'd like to
share and you're being able to communicate your concerns and get feedback on what you're asking about? Has it been going okay? I definitely think I hear you say want that to continue, but is there things the town can be doing differently? >> No, I I think it's been good. James reached out Robert reached out, you
know, from that, you know, before, you know, it'll be, you know, again, we're just seeing everything for the first time, you know, like you guys are, you know, from that. So, it's hard to kind of bring any constructive, you know, comments of feedback when we're just seeing it for the for the first time, which makes it a bit more challenging.
But, you know, like we've done in the past, we'll, you know, can put those in in writing. So, so everyone can can see that. >> Yeah. >> Um, you know, from that. >> Okay. >> But, no, I think it's it's been, you know, as far as the town process goes, I think it's it's been from my perspective, I'm not talking for anyone
else, it's been been okay. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for your feedback. >> Um, I'm just gonna open up. Does anyone on the Zoom have any comments at this time? >> Uh, yes. Tanks. Um, Jordan, uh, Canon is asking,
uh, will this be hard will this be hard bid in chapter 139? Uh, or will um where a construction manager be brought on board for the portion of the precon pre-construction and estimating under chapter 149A? Um, I'm assuming that we'll be I haven't
made any formal decisions on that yet, Jordan, but happy to keep you posted on Okay. >> on that. >> Okay. >> Um, another one. Do you want to take another Zoom one? >> Uh, sure. >> Uh, in regards to the estimate, this one, I think David and Alex, you might be able to help on this one. In regards to the cost estimate, what other
projects were used in reference or for reference rather? >> Um, our most recently bid projects were >> Tuxberry, DPW, >> Dubberry, >> Duxberry, >> uh, Bill Rick Um those are a couple recently large
projects that were bid in 24 25 >> and that would have been like the reference would have been cost per square foot or >> uh uh yes >> yeah okay >> y right >> um uh
Jenny I'm going to skip one of yours to get to the other cost related question then I'll jump back to the other ones um the 6% con construction contingency is very low at the schematic design phase. Are you concerned that you should have a more typical 25% to 30% construction
contingency at this phase? >> No, actually uh we think we're in uh in good shape on the construction contingency. We've done, you know, the uh thorough uh site investigation. Um
we're not I mean you you can never say for sure there won't be surprises but um we feel that uh that has are us covered in case of something unknown is uncovered. Okay. Um
>> uh why don't we finish with her questions and then I'm going to see if anyone else in the room because I know I think there was a hand raised earlier. >> Oh sure. Okay. Um, at this point, have you thought about uh storm water management and treatment yet with the wetlands nearby? Um, any storm water or green infrastructure planned at this
point? >> Yes, we have uh full site drainage um grading and drainage plans. Uh we do have uh those in the schematic design
>> submission package. So uh and there are uh catch basins and uh water uh catching controlling and um uh drainage. >> So just refer to the civil narrative in the drawings. There's a lot of good
details in there to answer questions. >> Okay. And and can you uh sorry um is there any map that we have that will show the >> um 50 and 100 foot buffer lines from the wetland to the site?
>> Yes. >> Okay. Yep. >> All right. We'll make we'll just make because I just want to because I think we'll probably get a because this will it it's if memory serves this will definitely trigger some form of >> conservation commission review just because of the um the proximity to the wetland. So >> um I don't I think we're getting a
couple questions about that. So, I just want to answer those before to get ahead of those. Um, but I know there's there was someone else in the room delineation. Sorry, there's a delineation report. >> Yep. >> Welcome. Thank you. >> Hi, I'm Claire Trumblay. I'm at 47 Art
Street. Um, I'm going to piggyback a little bit on what Charlie talked about. Um, bunch of concerns are what he was saying before. So, we bought in the neighborhood. The highway department was there. We don't make any
bones about that. It's not like surprise, wait a minute, we don't want the highway department there. >> Um, they have been good neighbors, >> but it I think a lot of us who buy in that neighborhood knows that the highway department is there, but it is set back.
It is one story. It is it's it's not a big part of the neighborhood. And now that's this isn't what we're seeing anymore. Like two levels, a parking lot. It's now like inc It feels like it's encroaching into the neighborhood.
>> Um it doesn't we all know it doesn't belong there, but it's there. That decision has been made. Um but I feel like You need to remember it's still a neighborhood. I mean, people live there. I live there. So, on a personal note, yes, I'm the one
that's living right next door. Um, now I'm like there's a fence going all over from the behind and the side and and everywhere. Um the parking I mean it's better than what it was for
shown to us but it's still I mean my house is set back so it's within like 15 20 feet maybe less of my garage and my house and all of it. So, a couple questions is one is way
back in the beginning, the very first um plan that we saw, the parking was never there. Then all of a sudden at the last meeting that this came up, bam, there's a parking lot there. And I can gather that they wanted to do
more and fit more, but what happened to the plan where the parking was back there? And do we need to have every single thing on the wish list being ignorant of what a DPW needs. But do we have to have all of
that stuff and then push that, you know, push into the neighborhood even more or is there something that like we don't I mean they didn't they were able to do the parking back there before. So I'm I'm wondering why
can't that parking lot be back there? um the public part of it. I don't I understand that it's only for people visiting the DPW. I don't know that um people are going to not use it for
everything else. Um I mean it'll be gated on the weekends, but plenty of people go to the beach during the week, especially in the summertime. So that's a little bit of a concern. Um, and the number of spaces.
So, I don't know if anyone here would know like how many employees are actually at the highway department. >> Do you know? >> Yes, I do. >> Do tell. >> Yeah. 26. >> Okay. >> Yeah.
>> And so, um, it is 23 spaces in the front. We need to maintain a couple of uh two accessible parking spaces that are not >> used by everyday employees and we moved eight additional spaces up to the front
of the building. So, it does accommodate the need of the DPW, but there's not a lot of extra spaces built into that. >> Okay. >> Parking at this point. It just feels like when I'm seeing things over there, I
never see more than a dozen cars. So, I don't know where all of a sudden there's 23 cars. I just >> water department too because we're combining the highway and the water department. >> Okay. >> Claire, I think I hear you asking for cons ongoing consideration of the size
of the parking lot. >> Yes. >> Okay. I think that's a request that we can make that that continue to be a design element that is reviewed with the neighbors direct buttering abuing neighbors concerns in mind. >> Um I I think I also hear you saying that
if there are tradeoffs you're you're asking the question I think why are we trading making a trade-off in favor of more parking could we make a trade-off in favor of less parking if there are trade-offs to be made. So, I think I'm I I am asking that that continue to be a consideration when you're working with
DPW staff, town staff on choices where there are trade-offs that we're we're remembering um the neighbors abuting neighbors comments. I also heard from Charlie and I think you brought it back up again maintaining natural buffers. I think that's always been the intent. You've always presented that as a as a
really important component of design, but I definitely hear that as being critical to the view that you're having. I wholeheartedly agree. It is a residential neighborhood with an industrial purpose in it at that one site. Um, and I think that's important that we remember. So, I'm glad you're bringing these comments up. >> And I and I would also say that, you
know, this isn't going to be we're going to make an attempt to have another conversation about this. So, don't feel like you have to have all your questions and sort of like, you know, we want to hear these kinds of comments and things like that, but we're going to make an attempt to have another um forum and an opportunity to really discuss this in much more detail and then so people can
digest it and sort of think about it a little bit. So this isn't going to be the last touch point. There's going to be more opportunities even just before May. So we're definitely going to have more conversations about this. So we do appreciate it and we'll, you know, absolutely we're going to, you know, looking at the parking like, you know, is that the right number? Can it be
reduced? Is there places that we can do? Could add more green space, more trees, more camp, things like that. >> I think that, you know, that's what we're hearing from you. So we appreciate it. >> Okay. >> Thank you. Um, anyone else in the room? Janice, go on up.
Hi, Janice Miller, 208 Winthrop Street on around the corner, not in immediate butter. Um, I had just a couple questions. Um, Claire asked many of them. Um, but also about visual screening along the rail trail. I walk the rail trail a lot. Um, right now it's
chain fence and now it's going to be bigger and probably noisier. I'm just wondering if you know there's going to be dense vegetation or visual screening there that would that would help for the rail trail side. Um but I would also say equally on the butter side you know
>> stockade fence is one thing but you know arbor vites um I think would also help. Um, and particularly on that on that edge of the parking lot if if that were to stay, I think that would having a visual barrier might, you know, people might not even know the parking is there
to mitigate some of the issues of of people parking there when they when they shouldn't. So, just a couple comments. Now, I have not been to some of the other um DVW meetings, but I'm also wondering um with one of the other hats that I wear about solar and heat pumps
um and or geothermal. Um is that a whole separate discussion? >> No, that was actually that was a question I was working on in my mind, so I was going to ask it. So, I'm glad you did. Thank you. Could you speak to the plans for the future plans for the DPW's use of solar and please?
>> Sure. Uh well, you can see from this rendering that the vehicle storage garage has a a very low sloped fairly flat uh large roof uh very amendable for a solar array. Uh that it will be side the structure will be sized to
accommodate a solar array. It's not incorporated into this project, but the town can have uh to choose to install a solar uh panel array at any any point in the life of the project. Um I think we would probably what we would probably do
is to see if there's any opportunities for to to do so like beyond the project like sometimes we have grants or opportunities to >> Yeah. We've worked on other projects that PPW7 towns have partnered with solar companies. >> Yeah. We might be able to find an opportunity to do that if it's not
necessarily constructed directly in the project. >> So the heating and cooling system wouldn't be included in the in the cost of the >> what you're proposing. >> Uh yes it is. Yeah. It would be airsource heat pumps. Um is in the in
the HVAC system. Um very efficient uh uh electric uh heat pumps uh with gas backup. I believe >> natural gas. >> Oh, natural gas backup. Yeah. Um >> thank you. Yeah. I mean it seems this is
a good time to think about solar as part of the whole rather than saying the town might pay for it. a big cost and rebates aren't there like they used to be. Um that I would advocate to talk about that now rather than later.
>> And um just one other question. Um when I walk by the DPW now, there are quite a few cars that are parked on that east side that currently shows a green space. Is that is that not an opportunity for
parking? I think that's Mr. >> Just curious ways to make that >> always open negotiation. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Ken. Thank you. Any others in the room? Yeah.
>> Can you come up and go? >> Yeah, we need to be able to hear you. They need to be able to hear you on the Zoom. and Louise Hanstead um a Cassandra Lane. Uh just a quick question and I apologize because I didn't have the opportunity to see at the beginning of the
presentation. Did you provide a cost breakdown about how you arrived arrived at and how detailed was the breakdown >> in this presentation? It wasn't thoroughly broken down, but we do have the thorough breakdown in a in a you know probably would take us hours to probably go through it all. >> It was about 10 items. They broke down
both the contingency costs and then the building costs into about uh probably I think eight on one and seven on another. Okay. >> So about 15. >> There is there is a much more detailed breakdown then we can go through another >> will you be distributing copies of this and then can I get the more detailed
breakdown? Sure. That'd be helpful. >> That was it. >> Thank you. >> Anyone else in the room? >> One more comment. church Robert 65 street. So just going back to the whole the you know the size of it
and everything you know from that like I don't think we need to lose sight we still own the central street location from that the DPW is a very seasonal operation um from that so it's not like we still have that ability to store stuff at that location that can be used you know seasonally from it. So I'd say
not to lose sight of that um you know obviously somewhat you know maybe biasly or selfishly like it's like a large canopy out back might be same cost to be on that side as it is on that side. Maybe maybe even slightly less. And you know, um so just being,
you know, just putting that out there that we don't we're not losing that site. I don't think there's any I don't think the town should be selling land. I think we we need more land than we we own for various different projects, you know, potentially coming down the line from it. same thing for trying to save as much cost as possible because it's
not going to be the first ask >> for a large large building in town over the next, you know, >> decade or plus, you know, from it. So, just saying we're not losing that site or that ability. So, I think there's still Okay. >> some some opportunity to to use that site for some of that stuff.
>> Thank you. >> All right. I'm gonna um I know it's you know there's other people that other topics for this evening and um you know what I would say is um uh we're gonna have another conversation about this. >> This is not the last time we're going to
talk about it. >> So please don't feel like if we're you haven't been heard or your question isn't answered thoroughly that there won't be other opportunities and we're going to talk about that a little in a little bit so we can u address that at that time. But I think for now I think we um can you know if you can you know
you've sent the presentation to the town manager so we have that information and we can make sure that we get like at least that part of the presentation onto the website so people want to look at it and review and things like that and we can come up with >> of course >> there's other questions and things like that but we're >> thank thank you for all the work you're
doing here and coming in and speaking to us and answering these questions. So we really appreciate it. >> You're welcome. Yeah. Terrific. We will talk again very soon. >> Good input. >> Thank you. >> Good to see you as well. Thank you so much. All right. Thank you. >> And thank you to everyone who came forward to
>> ask questions and there'll be more touch points. So please don't you know if your questions weren't answered or you have more we'll we'll talk again. Give them a moment to head out. >> Ben, if I could, do you mind if I just
touch on something related before we go to talk to the schools? Yep. Um, so just I know the board is obviously very committed to being as transparent about this whole process as as much as possible. Um, we did have an update on since I'm sure we will get lots of these questions come May 11th or maybe even
before. Um, we do have an update on the cross street location. Um, the land court saga continues. Um however we have been approached about um uh pursuing what we think is one of the last stages
of of the land process which is the taking and foreclosure process. Um one thing that the tax title attorneys have advised us is that uh there is no time frame that they can give us by which even if we if we said you know yes today how long it would take for actually the
parcel to come into the town's possession. Um, so that's that's something we're still working on, but again, just in an effort to be as transparent as possible about the crossuit location, that is where things stand as of um, >> and we still because we haven't controlled that, we still don't even know what's in the ground there. We
still don't know what the cleanup, we don't really know as much about that. We know certainly where it is, but >> yeah. And I >> has a lot of uh, unknowns even going into >> this process, >> right? But just wanted to, you know, make sure we're all on the same page about >> Absolutely.
Great. >> Yep. No problem. >> Thank you. >> Right. You guys want to So, uh, you want to bring up the, uh, our our friends from the schools to come on up to talk about a couple things. Um, whoever wants to come up to microphones. >> Sure. >> You are welcome.
>> Next week, too. >> You want to do this next week? >> Well, next week is a marathon Monday, so we're not going to be here on Monday. >> We're not. We're actually going to try to have like a little bit of time off. If I could get sharing.
>> Sure. So, um, similar to I just sort of while you get, uh, while Dan gets sharing, uh, to be able to talk a little bit about a couple things. I uh I had requested I had spoken to the chair Sarah who's been very amenable and gracious and listening to me and uh
we've been talking about a bunch of different topics and I just felt like it would be a lot more um productive to just have sort of come back and sort of have this conversation in this kind of a setting because I think there's still a couple unknowns that we want to all feel comfortable with going into town meeting in May.
We're closing the warrant tonight. That's the intention. So, we want to make sure that everybody's comfortable, everybody's good, everything's okay, and uh and to be able to understand and I think, you know, the the pieces that I'm sort of asking about was um we're talking about the 2.5 million
for the feasibility. Just kind of want to like go back to sort of >> how do we get to 2.5 million? Can we just walk through that process? And then um similarly like just going through your capital asks you had presented not not the topics themselves we understand like what you're asking for but just to sort of say like you know is there
flexibility here things like that to try to understand that and then finally we're just going to talk about a little bit about the uh the funding to the uh for the feasibility study just to sort of say where we are and you know sort of how we get to the next step. So I just thought it would be best to do it like this to try to like have you know phone
calls between individuals. I think that's not the most the best way to do it. Well, I thank you very much for coming in on a Monday evening. >> Um, it's a beautiful night and you had to spend it with us and I'm sorry. >> So, we have a bunch of stuff for you tonight. >> Oh, wonderful. Okay. >> Um, but to to go back, I mean, you know,
from the very beginning, one of the things that I've been talking about is trying to come up with a cost estimate, trying to have a process. >> I agreed. >> We we had a conversation. We agreed to run it through budget subcommittee. >> Yep. >> So, we did. Uh, Dr. Jordan, uh, Frank, uh, James got together, looked at some
comps, kind of did that analysis. It was a little bit more high level maybe than than, you know, sort of what you had put together, but it, you know, sort of painted a picture that that 2.5 was the best number >> or was was a and I and I sort of was a reasonable number. >> But the point I would also just point
out to is that the MSBA is not it's not very clear when you're looking at some of these things like what that actually looks like. >> The MSBA is wonderful. We love them. They're great. I know they're very helpful with this. >> Yes. >> But I want to make that sort of put that into the picture that we're we're trying to iron something out with a little like
kind of a hand tie behind that. >> And this is a number that is I hate to say it because it's going to probably come back to bite me. But it's it's not a a it's a squishy number. I mean, there's no, you know, numbers are all over the place. There's no, you know, easy way to
kind of come up with it. But I think I' I've I've done a little bit of work uh to put even more numbers behind the numbers that that you had put together. >> Okay. >> To demonstrate some trends. Um and >> okay, >> we'll see what you think. And then we have a a proposal for you. >> Okay.
>> In addition to that that I love it. >> A little hesitant with but >> let's hear it. Let's hear it. >> Okay. So, um >> Okay. So, um Nope. That's Well, I meant to move. I'm actually going to do something else first and then we'll get to the fun the propo the proposal. Um, so
>> I uh >> Oh, you're going to have to zoom in on that. >> Yeah. >> No, no. You can see that. >> No, no, no. You need to make it bigger. >> We need to make it bigger. >> Dan, we >> It's pretty colors. >> Could you prep yours as well? >> I think it's probably captured here, but
I You had an Excel spreadsheet. >> All right. Well, I'm just going to have to Yeah, it's a little bit >> There you I don't have the same. >> Sorry. >> You can just move it around. Yeah, >> that's readable. >> Yeah. All right. >> So, rather than just looking at things all together, you know, um this was
actually Don's idea was to kind of look at things over time and what I'm calling vintages. I like wine, so we'll call them vintages. >> Okay. >> Um and so we went back in in I went back in time. This is this is not easy information to necessarily gather. went
through a lot of warrants, a lot of, you know, different meeting minutes. I mean, it's it's sometimes we were in news reports and it was easy. Regardless, um, taking your cost per pupil type of, uh, number, which has its its pluses and minuses because large buildings tend to
have lower cost per pupil, uh, feasibility studies, small buildings tend to have enormously high cost per people because there's some some scale. >> But that also implies that there might be like that might not be the best the best. There's no there's no I mean you know there's no great barometer here for
for I mean so um in any event there is an interestingly sort of a trend though in the cost per per people and what you we see is from the 2019 2021 period 2020 got a little squirly because there weren't that many programs and and keep in mind these are just high schools so
there there aren't a ton of projects. Uh we've gone up pretty steadily year by year. In the last couple years, we've actually seen kind of an explosion um in in in in the numbers. So much of an explosion actually that I I um kind of
excluded uh or didn't use the median because the median would mean that we would actually need 3.7 million. Um so just I'm being reasonable here just so you understand. Um but if you take the the the average actually of 24 and 25 on a on a per pupil basis, you do get to
that 2.5. any any of these projects that they did theirs did we have any access to their calculations like how they came up with their numbers? >> I have not actually seen any calculations. >> I know I tried Google. I tried using the Google and it didn't work. >> I tried using the Bing. I tried using
the the Copilot the GBT if you maybe you had some some better >> one interesting data point is is Whittier Regional Group Tech. >> Okay. >> So they did a project in 2021. They accepted in 2019. They did a feasibility study for $1.8 million.
>> Okay. for their 1200 person school. >> Yeah. >> In 2024, they went to the multiple towns with a $445 million >> Oh, that was project. >> Is that the one that Yeah. >> And it failed. >> Yeah. >> They were removed from the MSBA. Uh the MSBA paid them their 50% or so. Uh later
that year, they received another invite in and just recently they actually received uh they actually um approved funding for $2.5 million feasibility study because the MSBA actually made them do it all again. from scratch. And so in that four or five year period, the
cost of their study uh went up by 38%. So I think that's an interesting one because that's really apples to apples, right? You're looking at at the same school over more apples to apples. >> That's an escalator >> number than that. Um
>> Daniel, what about cost per square foot? They correlate, but are these schools? >> I could barely find cost level. >> No, no, no. I we have the number of people, so you can kind of get the the size there. >> Okay. >> But um No, no, it's it's fine. I mean,
but but you know, realistically, if you look at the numbers, they are, you know, you know, you've got two and a half for for Brockton, which is a huge school, but then you've got 3 million for for Medford, which is only 1,200. You you've
got, you know, 2 million for Everett, which is two, you know, 2,200. You've got three million for Burn code senior high, which is 1,100. So, you know, I mean, I think that what we we came the the professionals got together and
said, you know, 2.5 seems to be the right number. If anything, I think that this data sort of demonstrates that maybe we're looking at potentially even even higher. I hope not or turns not higher. But I I I really don't think that a number below 2.5, you know, sort of makes sense. And I think the only
reason we're even talking about this is because we're we're we're concerned about the the money. And don't get me wrong, concerns about the money, you know, are real, but we don't want to go forward with something that we think might be underfunded and then have to come back and ask for more, especially
if it is even, you know, if it comes in even even higher than that. So, you know, for for me, and that's my opinion, we haven't obviously redised this with with the full school committee. >> Um, I think 2.5 is a is a good reasonable fair number.
>> Okay. Um, no. >> Like, so what are you like, if you don't mind, if you willing to say anything, I'm just curious like what you're >> about underfunding it too is that we won't be able to meet the needs of the community, right? Because when we we embark on this endeavor, we want to be
able to put something forth that has a reasonable likelihood of of moving forward from there, right? So, we don't want to be the school that put that spends $1.8 million and then what? Four years later, four years later spends >> 2.5 >> $2.5 million. We want to do this well
once >> and as you know if we don't exhaust the 2.5 it gets returned but if we underfund this >> I think we we don't want to follow the path of having to do this twice. Um >> and I mean one of the things that's also good about this too is there's also a
funding mechanism from the MSBA. Not to say that it's obviously after we've already outlaid but at least there is some return uh from the MSBA to pay for some of this particular project. Did we get did we get an answer about whether or not it is at the end of the project
or it is when we fund in >> I think >> yeah wasn't it once we they set up that propay so I believe at the end end of the eligibility period >> yes >> they set up the propay and then it sounded like it was fairly >> yes >> quick like a 15 days
>> turnaround once you start like they reviewed the receipts and >> um so I do think that once >> I think we have to get through the eligibility period if I understood that correctly But then once that happened, there was like a little bit of training and a setup with this this whatever app
or whatever it is that they use. Um but then it's a fairly regular process. So that sounded promising to me. >> And and then the the last question about this too is that like when you when this um gets you know if this gets approved by town meeting and goes out to bid to
is it like you know kind of sort of the traditional way we we procure where it's like you know we're 2.3 million or whatever. Is it kind of like a an ongoing process that we wind up sort of paying as we go through it? Um, >> I I don't know the answer. >> I'm just curious if there if we have any. I'm not trying to put anyone on the
spot here. >> It's okay. Yeah, come on up because we need a microphone. >> I'm sorry. >> Honestly, I don't know how James facility director. Um, how this is going to be procured. I'm sure there's a short list through the MSBA
>> that we'll have to go through. Um, and so I'm sure there are some, you know, sort of like an RFP, right? We we put out an RFP, we get, you know, responses back, we rank them and choose. But I have no confirmation of that. I just suspect that's probably the case. >> Yeah, there's probably going to be something there, too, because I think
there'd be a little more clarity once you because if it was a clean like, oh, it's here's the bid and we we take the bid and we kind of move forward, it seemed like it would make probably wouldn't be as complicated as it is to try to get an answer about how much it cost. >> I suspect we'll have this list that we can reach out to.
It's not that long. >> Well, you know, I just >> Thank you, James. >> And they all, you know. >> Okay. Um, >> so any any thoughts from you guys about Yeah, go ahead. Just >> so May has always been the priority for the feasibility study to be funded.
There was a significant amount emphasis on this board that may be the priority. >> So that's a truth like May's May's the goal. >> Um, then also 2.5 million is a priority for the school committee. You don't see this getting done for less than $2.5 million?
>> You think that is the most reasonable number to go forward? Whether it gets can get done for less, I mean, you'd always hope so, but I I don't, you know, yet I'm >> I'm still of the point of view that that the town through the town manager and the financial team need to do an analysis of the numbers. You've
presented some information to this board. I don't I don't see I'm not here to argue or debate um what the right number is as much as to say that I haven't seen compelling information from our financial team to say that 2.5 is the right number. And I think that just means it takes time to dive into this
detail. This is a conversation that started two or three weeks ago in terms of $2.5 million being where we need to settle on. I understand it was floated. Um but anyway, so May is a priority. Uh 2.5 is a priority. The town has done significant work to to find 1.9 million
of of available. >> We haven't gotten to that part yet. >> What the town has done significant work to find available money. Um we're here having this conversation because they don't align. And so my question to the school committee is what is your priority to fill a gap if there's a a gap? >> We were going to get to that. I wanted I
wanted to sort of talk I wanted to separate I agree and that is actually >> I just don't want what I don't want to do is string along assumptions to get to a conclusion without >> but I wanted to sort of make sure what because what I wanted to do is I wanted to make sure that we had a conversation about the 2.5 on its own before we got
to the funding because I think it because we have to sort of make sure that everyone's comfortable with 2.5 >> okay >> because if if we're I'm not saying this is what's happening but if we all say wait a minute maybe 2.3 is the right number it's a different conversation when it comes to funding. That's what I'm trying to point out here is I'm not
saying that that's what happening, but I want to make sure that everybody is comfortable with 2.5. And it sounds like the school committee is comfortable with 2.5. Am I making I just I wanted Okay. I just wanted to make sure that >> as far as the chair, vice chair, and chair of budget and the school. >> Have you Well, has the committee voted
on? >> The committee has voted on 2.5. We haven't >> re re and I'm not asking you to redo it. I just wanted to know like if that has been the vote you voted on >> David Jordan presented. I'm looking at a summary of information that says that the range is between 1.7 and 2.1 million
with an average cost per pupil of 2,109 multiplied then by the number of pupils if it's five grades versus four grades. So I'm I'm looking at information that is telling me that the range is between 1.7 and 2.1 million. So for me there's a gap in information. >> That was the analysis that Ben did and
and put out. I have since updated that and that's what we were just sharing showing the cost escalation. >> Yeah. what what the difference between what Dan did and what what I did is I just basically took everything. Dan's looking at it more from a year-by-year basis. And you try to put more information into that. >> Following when Ben provided that
information, I felt like the part that was like lacking was how much was it going up each year. So that's why I said, can we collect more data? Can we expand it and look at more schools and then analyze it by year to kind of get a determination of, you know, inflationary
impact really? I mean, probably just really how much is it going up each year? And that's that was a re a real concern, right? Because I think the way it was presented before didn't analyze it like that. I think there were a number of years. >> Yeah. I mean, I just like and but I also didn't have as many school systems. I
think the one that I was given >> the initial number that we that Frank and David Jordan and James Case had come up with was the 2.5 initially and then you were kind of looking at it differently >> and that's what you >> Yeah, I was trying I was trying to get that. I was trying to use the numbers to to I mean my my brain goes to data
analysis like how can I >> crunch the numbers to get to that >> and I was trying to get to to to sort of understand how I could get to that and unfortunately what's hard is because the only two data points I really have are we only have really the dollar figure
and they the the dollars per pupil because we only really have the enrollment. So, we don't have like district size, we don't have lot size, we don't have, you know, are they buying another piece of land? We don't have some of those other things. And I'm sure some of that stuff factors in and that's the problem with this whole process
>> is that there's a lot of elements going into it and we're trying to do our best to figure it out. >> I just think we might be charting a course towards a conversation where not all things can be true. So May is a priority. 2.5 appears to be the priority. Uh so the conversation will
continue. I just hope that we end up at a place where, you know, uh, we have a reasonable outcome because I'm not sure all balls can be up in the air and we land exactly where everyone wants to land at the end of this conversation. >> Well, I think >> so if there's no if I'm not hearing any any wiggle room on the 2.5. I'm hearing
that is a very firm school committee request for 2.5. >> That's what that's what I'm hearing too. >> Damon, you have any thoughts here? No, I mean I think the problem with estimating the cost of a project like this is that your bearings are based on regional variables, growth variables that you don't have your handles around and it's
largely unfortunately a guess and I agree with you when you make the point of like we don't want to underfund a thing and have to boomer around. So it's kind of like very I don't have great feelings about the number but I also believe firmly that it'll be better to have a comfortable number and that we're not going to regret later. So little bit
of a walking or tight rope, but that's where I'm at. >> Yeah. I mean that for for me it's you know I understand 2.5 I understand it but it's more it feels more emotional to which is really a hard place for me to be and I'm not trying to dismiss it because unfortunately this is kind of what we're the hand we're dealt this is
what the information we have >> and you know and I have to sort of acknowledge that and that's a hard place for me to be. I also want to the point I don't want to underfund it. don't want to put us in a in an awkward situation, but I'm also kind of like as a somebody
who likes data and wants to make sure the data is right. I'm I I it's it makes me uncomfortable because I don't have enough >> with you and you can you can look at it afterwards. I think that one of the things that it shows is that the numbers are increasing >> and that and and
>> yeah and and I and based on you know the dollars per people. It's kind of what I'm >> Well, yeah, but you know, the only real kind of way to level set >> I know it's sort of I I I I Yes, I'd love to see it. I'd love to play around with it, but I mean, at the end of the day, that's just me doing math on a spreadsheet and that's not really
helping us to make a decision tonight, which is what we're kind of >> I think it's safe to say that the cost is somewhere between zero and three million. So, >> thank you for that. That that I think that the data supports 2.5. I think that you couldn't you can take this data though and you could twist it into turn
it into something to >> Yeah, I I mean I I I think north of two makes sense. I think 2.5 I'm getting a little but I'm also I understand and I don't I want to sort of get there but >> yeah so I I think you know we're we're we hear it. So I don't want to waste
everybody's time with a continue but we can go to the next which is basically um you know we get like Tina brought to the point that you know the town has sort of looked for through capital looked through old warrant articles we've looked at moving stuff to other
places we found 1.93 million and we that leaves us if 2.5 is the right number that leaves us $565,000 short >> and so we have a proposal for that. Okay. >> Again, this this has not been voted on by the school committee, but I think the chair, vice chair, and chair of budget
are in agreement. So, I think that there's >> okay, >> not certainty, but as much certainty as you're going to get with an actual vote. >> So, all three of you like there's a there's a general consensus considering that >> there's an agreement on on this offering. >> There's six there's six members, so it would be a deadlock if it wasn't
>> and and and Dr. Jordan is also comfortable with with this proposal. Okay. Um, so, uh, I am I will tell you that this is uncomfortable putting forward because I think that there's there's some things here that I don't want to be, um,
I'm I I don't want to put forward some of the things that we're going to put forward and have it sort of be like, well, then there, you know, this is you've come forward and that's that's the number that we're going to then do because I think some of it is trade off some things that I wouldn't do necessarily if we had to try to
potentially come up If if say that the board was only going to support a smaller number and then we needed to kind of try to come up with more money later or something like that it so so just >> why don't you make your >> let's let's see what you got >> my point in in in you know in collective
bargaining there's this thing called a package proposal which is basically >> hand down on the table please >> basically you know accept the entire thing or or or nothing is there I'm sort of putting it forward in that vein where it's like it's sort of like this is all part of one package And no piece on its
own is sort of being offered up on on itself. >> You want you want the whole is basically you want us to look at the whole package or none of it. >> Correct. >> Okay. Well, let's see what you got. >> Okay. But I also think that, you know, based on our conversations this weekend, I think it is is um demonstrating some
some >> my wife had words for me. She's like, "What are you doing in the Target parking lot for 45 minutes?" I was like, "I'm talking to you." >> To be clear, the board has not been brought up to speed on >> No one has been brought up to speed. Ben doesn't even know. I don't even know. This is This is the first time I'm seeing it.
>> The proposal, please. >> Wait a little longer. >> Come on, D. Let's go. >> So, the proposal starting at the 1.935. >> Yeah. >> Is that we reallocate $100,000 from our HVAC account that has currently been refreshed and is at $500,000. It was
spent down to I think less than 100,000 or close to 100,000 after we replace some big units. Um 400,000 is the lowest that that Dr. Jordan and I are are comfortable going given that the biggest unit if it goes is in the 300,000 kind of range. >> Um, however, doing this does put us at
risk if we have a big unit and a small unit go or something like that. I mean, it's not this is not >> Well, there's always like if we had to, we could always beg the finance committee for a uh reserve fund. >> Yeah, absolutely. They are beyond life expectancy which is why that was so >> but I'm just saying like this was not like an ideal thing but actually this
was this was something you brought up and I and I thought to myself you know I hadn't that had not crossed my mind so I said okay let's look at that. >> Thank you. Um, we we are proposing returning the $65,000 from I think it's there's an actual real number there, you know, but it's about 65,000 from the the
Ram's roof. Yep. Capital appropriation, which we had thought about holding on to at least some of because just with the solar going in, if there were things that either need to be done quickly that maybe were going to be covered by the solar insurance, they broke something, but we wanted to get it done. We just wanted to have the funds there. But >> we're going to we're going to go out on
a limb and and and return all of that. And then we will we will propose we are proposing uh postponing 50% of our our high school supply request to October. That would allow us to buy sort of semester one supplies for for for the fall. Then uh seek the additional um
approval for for that funding. >> Okay. >> Uh for the second semester that would be in you know the the winter. >> Okay. And then while the finance committee has recommended 50 $500,000 uh from the DPW set aside, this would bring us to $350,000 from the DPW set aside.
>> Can I All right. Um well, first I want to say thank you for putting something together after our conversation and you know I realize I have not seen this until now. The board has not seen this from now. So, you know, we're seeing for the first time to try to understand and sort of absorb and, you know, the the
landscape was sort of set by the finance committee chair at the beginning about the $500,000 proposal as being sort of the starting point here in this conversation. So I guess my my question is um here is that
one of the other areas that had been floated and I've sort of I I wanted to I'll float again is we had talked about there's the the money for the roof from the MSBA program that is not likely to to take place for several years.
Is that on the table? And if like why is taking from that and then repaying it with MSBA money probably reimbursed before it was done because I as I understand it that project would not be done for several years. I guess why not use that as sort of the uh the starting
point rather than the DPW in this case. I I think it is hard to um send a message that we are going to give up certainty of funding for that pro project and keeping in mind that going through the MSBA process does appear to
be a more expensive process than we we sort of originally thought. So the $2.7 million project that we initially thought the replacement is going was going to be is probably going to be more which means at some point we probably will also need to actually come up with more money. it will still save us money
over the the duration, but the savings is certainly not going to be 50% of the project once, you know, we add some some amount to it. So, I think that that's one is that we probably need more than is already there. >> Mhm. >> We are as as the chair of the finance committee said, we are running very very tight and as as Frank has said, we are
running very very tight on our capital. We we want to have uh certainty of funding. Um and so for me, that that was that is not a place that I'm, you know, looking to um to to tap from and which is also why I thought that the HVAC um
money was was a good sort of uh compromise. >> The biggest capital need in the town of Hollist is the DPW facility. If you watch the Heartbeat of Hollist HCAT show that aired on Friday, that is it's been it's been something this board and and
many who speak in front of it have have mentioned for years now. The biggest capital need in the town of Hollist that we have today, that we had yesterday, that we'll have tomorrow, next year, for the next 5, 10 years. The biggest capital need is the DPW. It makes no
sense to me that we turn to the DPW to find capital for a high school. >> I strongly disagree with you. I think we have talked about the fact that the high school is actually the biggest capital need that this town has. We have talked about this for 10 plus years. Um far longer actually than the DPW.
>> So then I'll back up to 2023 when we had a working group with school committee representation with finance committee representation with select board representation. In 2023, as the town embarked on the DPW project, we had a
working group to build consensus to come up with an understanding of where the priorities would be in taking on this DPW project. The high school building project was always a part of that conversation and we ensured that by having representation by the school
committee in that working group. We have a October uh sorry um March 2023 working group memo from those three collective bodies that presented a funding mechanism for the DPW identifying it as
the priority capital project that set aside $7 million of capital expenditure funds to lower both the excluded and non-excluded debt component of the DPW project. This was a consensus building endeavor. This was a working group
combined with school committee, select board, and finance committee. Yes. >> Yeah. >> So to move the goalpost a month from town meeting when we're about to present a ballot question for DPW funding, to move the goalpost and
say today the priority is $2.5 million appropriated in May of 2026 makes no sense to me. The DPW is falling down. It is our biggest capital need. It is an enormous project this town needs
to take on and we've been working for three years with consensus building from the school committee and the finance committee. So I while I appreciate genuinely appreciate efforts to find compromise. We've been having conversations for for weeks now on where
can we find compromise to have the DPW at $350 million impacted by what's proposed here is is not something I can get behind. >> Well, keep in mind first of all, this is also um removing the the truck from our request when we can get to sort of the the Delta in the capital request. I was
on that that working group. That working group came up with a plan to fund the Axen Cross DPW project at $30 million. That project that that working group also recommended that we continue to increase the capital set aside appropriation within the budget. That
didn't happen. We are no longer talking about a $30 million DPW project. We're talking about a $48 million DPW project. So everything is sort of out the window, if you will, especially when you're talking about a relatively small, >> but I'm not sure the commitment to the taxpayer is out the window. I'm not sure
the commitment to use capital funds. >> There's no there's no removal of the commitment to the taxpayers for the DPW. I still think that the DPW is an important project. The funding mechanism for it though is is a completely different set of of of of that different set of parameters than what we were
looking at with Axent Ross. It is a completely different project. double the cost sorry almost 50% more than what we were looking at with with action and cross we did not go and increase the capital set aside in the in the budget in fact we've reduced the capital set
aside in the budget we have done everything on at a on a budget for for many reasons there were many different pressures on on on the budget but there were there there we've done essentially everything to actually undermine the funding of the DPW based upon the way
that the the working group sort of put that funing together. >> I I think that I mean difficult times require difficult conversations but just like we are all collaborating here on um being very creative in finding additional funding which I feel like we have we're also asking for some
collaboration and creativity on the funding mechanism in order to meet all of the needs. Right. I strongly feel that the roof project should be considered for reimbursing some capital money to free up some of that 350,000 if not all of it.
>> But Tina, the same way that you feel very strongly about and about the DPW and the needs there, we also hear from the schools and and see the pictures of it raining in classrooms and and having um the roof deteriorating. And so >> and you've done your due diligence. You
have chased down MSBA program. you have a you have a state funded grant program to reimburse on that project. We follow the timeline. Our our facilities manager keeps us up to date on how that project has and will progress. We're fully aware uh of of the need to replace the roofs
and and this board's been committed to to to that work. We have >> actually the roofs need to be replaced today. >> What we're doing is by going through the MSB process to try to get extra money from the state. We have actually delayed when the roofs when the roof should be replaced. What I I I I think we all like
like both can be true that we have a commitment there, but also that I think that the question is is that >> I'm hearing from you that it is a it is a critical need right now and yet we're going through a process that is not right now. We're basically we have a
process that is going to take several years to get through, right? Right. I mean, we're not we're probably not looking at an actual replacement for this roof until 2028 20 I mean, for for a couple years. Am I Am I correct in that?
>> That is that Mr. Keith thinks that it may take until 2028. I you know, I that I'm not going to doubt him, but I mean I >> I certainly hope that it that that it would it would not take that long. >> I know, but >> at the same time, we're talking about certain funding. We're talking about a
project that has been approved by town meeting. uh which compared >> so was the DPW >> DPW action cross was approved by meeting the DPW >> well but then but then in the fall it was also approved with the for the uh current location the Arch Street location >> we brought this back repeatedly
>> and I brought it back to >> the funding of it has not been set aside so look >> yes >> this is what we've come forward with with a with an offer which I think is fair shows commitment on our part to try to work with you we're trying to avoid having contention at town meeting
>> of course that's why we're here and I understand that that sometimes these things these conversations can be a little hard. >> So, but if if this is not something that the board is interested in, you know, we you know can can see see what what the residents uh want to do with that meeting.
>> Well, so there's there's there's two things. Poor Damon here. I got to make sure I get him out here because, you know, we've heard from the two of us. >> But the other the the thing is is that we're closing the warrant tonight. So the intention here is is yes we're going to do these things but there's not a lot you know one of the comments that I made
to to Ken and sort of applying here too is like we've sort of put ourselves in a position where it's difficult for two boards to be able to reconcile differences and there's not a great mechanism for doing so. Hence why this is a little awkward. This is a little
uncomfortable for everybody. But it's also, I think, an important moment to be able to have a conversation like this, to disagree civily, which I think we're doing, and I appreciate that, but also to be able to have an opportunity to try to work through some of these things
in a in a in a reasonable way. And I and I and I so I I I thank you for coming. I thank you for bringing this forward. Let's hear from Damon first before we move to because you know two of us have already kind of spoken a little bit here and I think we need to sort of put some cards on the table in a second because I
think we need to be able to say whether or not like what we're going to do here for a next step. So >> I'd like to excavate for a little bit of friction. So I think that there's been a lot of good due diligence put into this proposal and I respect that you all came back with some cards to put into the game. Um I'd love to know from my fellow
board members that 350,000 amount What are what are you feeling is kind of the riskreward scenario there that that causes a lot of alarm? I tend to be much more dollars and cents about these things and the train's coming down the tracks. What's going on your way? But I'd love to understand kind of the worry
there. >> Well, so my PR I I have a couple, but the the probably the biggest one is that we were looking at if this article does not pass for the DPW, we're in a situation where we have 500 we have $7 million in this article. Some of it's
been spent, some of it's been not. But basically, we had $2.5 million for the schematics, for the design, for the for for this some of the work that the Western Samson has performed, $500,000 for the culvert. And if article does not pass, we're in a situation with
temporary facilities that we have a a gap here of potentially close to $4 million because we're going to need to these buildings are beyond their useful life and they need to and we and right now we're kind of working through it because we know that there's potential light at the end of the tunnel. But if
we have if we can't get through this and uh I'm really looking forward to the fact that I have to do this. I was the one who came went up in front of town meeting for Axton Cross and I'm gonna have to do it again for Art Street if you know if we if that's what we're doing and it looks like it is. But the the reality here is is that it puts us
in a position that's precarious based on these temporary facilities because we're going to be in a situation where those buildings are beyond their life and I am concerned that we are not going to be able to house our DPW adequately because we those buildings cannot it should not we need to move on and we need a
solution and we need it now and if though we're working towards those temporary solutions the estimates I've seen for solutions that are beyond just That's a tent, which is like, you know, not what we need here. If because if it's going to take some time, it could
it could be close to $4 million in temporary facilities. I'm concerned about that. It puts us in a in a in a difficult position. >> This makes me I mean, and I and I appreciate and I want to like talk about it, but it's sort of like we're, you know, we're talking about one side of it and we're not actually acknowledging the other, which is, you know, to to Tina's
point that the DPW is important. It is an issue. And that's what makes me uncomfortable here. >> But it's four of$6 million, right? >> What's that? cost of the temporary structures and things that you're talking about is four million of the six and a half million that's left. >> It's it's potentially $4 million to to
because we need a we need a salt shed. We need a fuel tank solution. Yes. >> And there's $6.5 million >> and there's $2.5 million for the design engineering and especially if the the design engineering has to continue. It's going to cost more money because the the drawings that they're talking about like the design particulars, they have to
like draw every single like out. It's very particular. It's very expensive. >> I'm sorry. I apologize for not following. There was 7 million. Yes. >> And was the 2 and a.5 million spent on what was presented. >> It is not spent on what is presented. It is that is paying for what that process
that design engineering process that is going on. If it's ongoing and continues because we have to go back to go back to to change something, it will continue to escalate that >> of the seven. What's left? So, uh, there were $7 million
appropriated in 2023, right? Um, with the original action and cross vote, >> uh, in May of last year, there was $500,000 out of that 7 million appropriated to fix the culvert, which is one of the culverts that we were just talking about that. So, now we're down to six and a half, >> right? >> We estimate that the, um, by the time
we're done and paying Western and Samson for the schematic schematic design, which we just saw, it'll be closer to $6 million. Right around six million um >> 2.0 Yeah, for schematics. It's not not 6 million for schematics, is it? >> Oh, sorry. Of the six and a half, that
will go down to six left. So, around 500 grand for this for the schematic design is what we're thinking. >> To to what we have, I remember the bids that we got from them to to to engage in this process was north of was close to 2.5 million to go through the entire process for design. That was the bid I saw. Am I
>> completely like off the the chain here? What What am I >> You're saying the two and a half that you saw on the screen earlier? No, I remember that the bid that we saw from them for the design engineering was $2.5 million. That's what I'm remembering. >> That's from Yeah, from where we're in
part of the state. >> Yeah. Come up here. >> Thank you, James. >> Thank you, James. >> That was no problem. >> And if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I just That's >> No, the two and a half includes the um full uh design engineering plans that you were just talking about. >> Yes. >> On top of, you know, procurement and
managing the procurement process. So the fee that we would be paying so this say this this passes. >> Yes. >> The fee that we'd be paying West and Samson is about 2.75. >> Yeah. They called it out in their presentation today. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> But if it passes then you have a dead override that is going to >> Yes. if it passes. But that that my
concern if it doesn't pass it six million, >> there's a number there's a number of large asks on the the for free cash in the fall, which could be prioritized by the board to put that money back into the the DPW sort of fund to to to pay
for those things. I tell you the the schools don't have significant um fall capital requests, >> but and and I appreciate that, but I think that's we're we're putting the cart before the horse because we need to talk about May and we need to sort of >> No, I'm just saying like it's a backup plan. There's other money that will be coming and the work that you're talking
about, you know, could be supplemented with with October of funds. >> Damon, you asked about excavating to find conflict. I I am absolutely committed to compromise. I know I don't present that right now at the table. Um, I know I look like I'm dug in on this, but Frank and I have numerous conversations. We've had many over the
past few weeks on this topic, searching for compromise, and we've had detailed, lengthy conversations about how to get there. I am committed to compromise. But where I see conflict is the goalpost moving. This is a month before we go to town meeting, before we put a warn
article on for the DPW, before we go to the ballot to the election with the ballot question for the DPW. This feels like moving the goalpost and I would hope that you all could appreciate the work and effort that that this board has gone through with an open public
engagement process to repeatedly hold forums, hear feedback, engage with Weston and Samson. To be at this point in time with a request like this is moving the goalpost. The goalpost is the set of assumptions that we went into
this DPW project with which was $7 million of capital money available to advance this project. Not for the not for the school committee to say, well, how much of that 7 million? You certainly can. That's not what I'm talking about. Your questions are are fine, but the assumptions were
established in 2023. And here we are a month away. We're about to vote on a ballot question and we're being presented with a request from the schools who are not showing in my my honest opinion not showing flexibility in considering the roof appropriation for October. You may have your reasons
but from where I sit at the table I'm not seeing flexibility on that and so I'm seeing the goalpost move. So that's one point of conflict for me that has me a little dug in in this moment. I'm willing to move beyond it. Compromise is important. I sense rush. I sense
urgency. I have felt a sense of urgency over this from the moment we got the notice in December. I don't feel that sense of urgency. I feel like we make the best decisions when we are steady and calm and in control. It has taken us three years to get to being a month away from this ballot question and this
warrant article. We found out in October, sorry, in December that we were entered into the MSBA program and it is balls to the wall to get to the feasibility funding in May. That's okay if that's the number one priority, but
that's a lot, right? When it's taken so much time for thorough deliberation to get through a process on the DPW. So to be presented with the DPW now as a source of uh the solution, that's hard. And then the third is just good faith dialogue. To be hearing about this at
the table in April, to be hearing about this even in March, feels like this was a December conversation. It was certainly a a a May of 2023 conversation. The working group held out the possibility of a high school project in their deliberation and in the in the
plan that we've set forth. We've never not thought about the high school project. We have supported it from the get-go. This is nothing short of full support of a high school project. But we are a month away from town meeting article and a ballot question. and we are being asked to cut $500,000 of a $7
million capital commitment that we had made through a collaborative working group. That's my conflict. >> And to not have flexibility offered on other large capital expenses when the need for the DPW is well understood by
the community. There's not a person out there who would look at that DPW who would look at that Heartbeat of Holiston show and say this can last a little longer. this is this is not the greatest priority need. That's that's my issue here. All that said, I'm going to stop
talking and I'm going to be guided by my board and our town manager on where we have compromise. I'm willing to work towards it, but my conflict lies in those three points. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Other towns navigate this and they're on the same time frame. So I I you know I
apologize if you feel rushed but I do think that when the MSBA comes forth to towns and tells them go forward many many towns have meetings as early as April and they can navigate to this point >> and some don't >> right um and so I I don't think that
it's untenable to be ready um for town meeting with this feasibility study and and the amount and and I understand that this is these are difficult conversations on on how to find the funding but I please do understand that we have gone back through your request from last week. We have found other
areas and we're just really asking for some creativity on the funding. >> Yeah, I mean, you know, this I I you I I do appreciate I do appreciate coming and and and making an effort here. I think I think it is hard
for us to sort of sit here and you know we really sharpen our pencils to get the 1.935 and it's like that's not enough and it's like you know that's just my gut talking here. It's sort of you know as the the
chair of the select board I expect to be to be vilified. I expect to be cast aside because that's sort of the nature of this role at times. um that but it's also feels at times what I'm trying to say here is it's just that
like sometimes it feels like non-sup support of something like this is not an option and it I don't like feeling like being losing agency in the in the course of these things. I want to be able to sort of say like look, you know, I am uncomfortable at the 350. Um, but I get
it and I I don't like it and I think I would what I would ask for given this circumstance is that we have we put forward that if there is favorability under the 2.5 that that additional money is returned to the DPW then I will be
okay. Then I would and and I this is beyond what you can promise. This is something beyond that. But then I would be more comfortable with it if we said that, you know, it comes in at 2.4 and there's an additional $100,000 in favorability that we said that that would go back to
>> because I because that that would make me feel more comfortable about that that the favorability would come back and that that's what I would want to see >> and and I would feel more comfortable with it. >> What does that look like through the process? You will go out for a town will
go out for a quote for a feasibility study. >> It was a bid. >> Yeah. Yeah, we'll have to bid and um I I would expect for a study like this, we would be build we would we wouldn't wait to be build until the very end, but we probably get monthly or however money. >> No, but if if the bid comes in at 2.5
before we award it, we will immediately immediately release the >> the additional money would come back to would go back to that's that's what I would want. >> Can we craft a ballot question with that assumption? >> I think we could do it as a warn article. I don't think well ballot question. I don't think we would because
this isn't adopt >> right the feasibility study >> this is not going out to to the >> I understand >> we can see what council says I don't >> they're talking about having the ballot question for the DPW reflected to be >> uh
>> because these things are linked I I firmly >> I firmly believe they should not be linked like I I don't want to be having a conversation about the DPW project while we're talking about the feasibility study and there it is on the slide so unfortunately these are linked any present ation to town meeting. This
will be linked and I think that's a very unfortunate thing uh for all of the reasons I said before. So now we're talking about both of these things. So yeah, let's talk about the ballot question and what that looks like with with the language at the table here right now. Let's talk about what it means to have, you know, that what does
that look like? Because we're going forward for a very big request. This is the the project to get across the finish line this May. >> So the these details matter. valid question doesn't actually include a dollar amount for a debt override. >> It does >> or percentage of the
>> It'll be the percentage. Yeah, >> it'll be percent you can maybe but it's not the actual dollar amount. So it doesn't move you you can you can especially with a few hundred,000 >> I think it's so if I remember correctly the the article for town meeting would
have the dollar amount and then the >> right but then town meeting could go back and reappropriate that extra >> something like that extra money and the debt exclusion would say like you know, so much of a percentage of this particular project. >> I don't think you would need to. You could craft it without even having that language. >> It shouldn't include any numbers really.
It should just be will the will the voters >> Well, I mean, the voters are going to ask for a number. So, it's like >> No, no, you have you have to present the numbers, but 100,000 few hundred,000 here and there is. >> But I I think you know >> the logic is the same. You don't want to return to town meeting to ask for more if the feasibility study doesn't come in
at meeting. >> We're you know, we're three years in on this. Um we're we're as motivated if not more uh as you >> I don't think you would need to return to town. >> Well, I mean we're just you know we're we're you know >> this is what the board's being asked to consider in order to accommodate a
request to like 350,000. But I'm proposing and I'm trying to propose and then we're seeing if there's so um we can look at the I think we if we if board is amendable we can take a look at the language to make sure that there whether it's in the motion and town
meeting or if it's ballot how we can get to some of that. It's not it's not a huge amount of money here but it's just sort of making sure you know that there that that's part of the equation here. >> Yeah. the uh so the ballot question as uh as drafted this evening would be
basically to move that the town uh residents vote to allow 60% of the debt associated with the project be exempt from from Prop 2 and a half. Um I think that what what we could do is structure the
motion appropriating the funds. If the select board wants to do this, we could we could ask the MSBA to allow for us in the motion that we include in the warrant, but I think they probably more so care about the motion um to allow for
any unexpended funds for the feasibility study to be reappropriated back for the purposes of um >> you know tax bill reduction of tax bill back associated with the withd because it's it's an after the fact thing. I can't I mean they might
something and we can figure out some other mechanism if we have. >> Let's just pause and and recognize what we're doing here. We are linking two town meeting the DPW project with the feasibility study >> failed unfortunately >> but not by our choice. I know. I know. >> Not by anyone's choice. By by by fate's
choice of the timing of which, you know, these two projects have have >> No, I do think there's I do think there's choice here that's not on the table, which is again say we've got a $50 million project and we've got, you know, a hundred plus million dollar to the town, you know, high school project. There's there's always going to be
linking because taxpayers only have so much capacity. >> I'm looking at the roof project and I'm looking at the reappropriation of the return of funds from the roof project. That's not going to link the DBW and the and the high school project >> if it takes $350,000 off of this proposal. It would
>> Okay. All right. Um I mean I would have preferred the the roof project as well, but at the same time I also and I I agree, but I also feel like we're we're the the the part that that that frustrates me in this
situation. we don't come to a compromise tonight and come up with something, um I I know that the finance committee will make the decision that they make and we're going to have battles on town meeting floor that I don't want to have. >> Yeah. I mean, we make the motion for the
article. We'll present the motion for the article for the DPW article and and the motion will include if we choose to write it in this way the $7 million um of capital expenditure funds and that can be amended on the floor by the finance committee. I understand
how unappealing that is. >> It's unappealing. >> I understand. >> Damon, what do you what do you what do you think here? >> Just to stir the pot some more. >> Yeah. Go ahead. It's 920. What the What the heck? Let's do more. >> Go ahead. I I believe in I believe in sunshine politics like things on the
table. >> This is good to have this. >> Is it our belief? So the main worry honestly is that DPW doesn't move forward and then we've got to do something that's >> that's my it's my it's my concern here is that we we're we're in a position >> I you know we've we've talked at this
table before about kind of the like this is a very healthy conversation which I think we should be doing more of with the finance committee as well. Agreed. which we I've never seen and would really love to see because I right now I'm sitting here going right but I would expect since the finance committee hasn't reviewed the $500,000 proposal
and this is a compromised proposal that I would also expect but the problem the problem is is the finance committee hasn't reviewed it so we're literally talking about something and there's two members of the finance committee who haven't even talked about they certainly might have opinions but I'm I mean putting them on the spot >> I did speak to the chair of the fin talk
but I did speak to the chair of the finance committee I didn't detail the the >> yeah detail sales by said if we came to a different agreement with the with the slight board and it was you know less than 500,000 you know do you think that that would be something that the finance committee would support and he he seemed to indicate that he thought that that that would at least you know be
something that strongly yeah bridged with that and obviously ballot questions from town meetings etc but I I would also I don't know if in private conversations this has come forward but could I expect fullthroaded support for the DPW project as currently described
from various members of various supporting boards given the way that it's been structured. >> I I well >> and I'm not going to hold you on to that. I'm >> I I would love to hear your opinion but I also want to kind of keep it here for right now because I just it's not because it's just like you know >> I am going to I'm sorry.
>> No, it's okay. It's okay. But you know I I think you know getting those kinds of moments of support I I I I would love that. I would love to have that conversation. Uh the problem becomes is that literally we're all looking at a lot of for the first time tonight. So,
it's like a lot of people putting people on the spot to be in that kind of a position is premature. >> Um, but I I would hope that we could get to that point. >> That's that's kind of, you know, we we want to make sure that we're, you know, like we're we're working together
towards these things because we all benefit from it as taxpayers, as you know, as citizens. And >> I have been with my support for the DBW project in the past. I still am supportive of the DPW project. That price tag was a little shocking. I will admit. So, >> we're here like >> but and I'm sure it was to you as well.
>> We're trying to work our way through some of those things and we have to sort of process and think about those things. >> So, all right. So, take a step back here like just let's go around here like just sort of like yes or no comment here like if this was the proposal with that
uh favorability would be returned to the DPW funding is that just going around the room just are are people >> non-committal? >> Yeah. Non non-committal. Right. the second because we haven't voted on anything, but just like is there is there support for doing something like that? Even if we if we can get the
ballot question the right way, the right language, would you be okay with >> not at this time? I'm uncomfortable with the speed at which this is moving with the variables in play. >> Okay. >> I think there's more conversation to be had here. >> So, okay, that's fine. That's fine. Damon, what do you think? >> I a pragmatic but concerned. Yes.
>> Okay. Sarah, what do you think here? Are you okay with this? >> I'm okay with this. >> Okay. Don, you okay with this? D, you're okay? I'm also a pragmatic and concerned. Yes, >> I I am I I probably to a fault. I like to solve problems. So, I'm always looking to try to find the way that we
can solve a problem. I'm a Yeah, I'm a I'm a I'm a halfway Yes. I I don't I don't love this solution. And I do wish the roof was on the table, but I also recognize the fact that I can't make you put the roof on the table. And I but I I don't like how we got to this point that
the DPW was put into this conversation. Sort of we're not we we weren't sort of like, hey, can we bring this forward? Can we do this? This is sort of part this is a process problem that I'm identifying that the select board is being asked to do something that the
select board didn't propose to do. And we didn't say we didn't say we about the 500,000. It was not our proposal. It was not our idea. We weren't putting it forward. That being said, there there's other issues and there's other things that we need to sort of address in that case down the road. We don't have to do that right now because we're not going
to solve that today. But I want to point out that process that there's a process issue that I have with how this got to this point. That's what I want to put on the table. Um that being said, um there's sort of a rough consensus here and it's not I wouldn't say comfort, but
rough consensus that this could be a potential proposal for Tom >> that we could do this. >> Okay. What does that mean? >> Well, we haven't voted. We're going to vote on the articles in a bit. >> Okay. >> So, what I'm trying to tell you here is is that I think we're good in this conversation, but we still have to vote. And I don't want to put a vote
prematurely because we have to look at the language and we have to do all the pieces. >> Okay? I don't think anything's going to change from that, but we're going to look at this and we also need to vote. So, um, the other piece is that your capital requests. Are you taking something off your capital request? >> Well, I mean, so we take So, we're taking the maintenance truck off of the
capital request. >> You're taking the maintenance truck off? >> Yeah. And then and then we're reducing. So, keep in mind again, we have not on this. We're we're in agreement on it. I think that we will we will raise this as soon as we can at the bud at a budget sub at a budget subcommittee meeting and the full school committee. We don't
technically meet again until April 30th. So, I think we could probably schedule a very quick meeting to to just get that done. Um I >> So, you're you're proposing $115,000 taken off your capital requests. >> Correct. >> That's that's what you're asking for. Okay. So, we would >> those numbers are also intertwined with
the I mean some because because we're voting on capital requests. We want to make sure that we have those ironed out. We want to make sure that we understand what >> take the plow off and and reduce the um curriculum the high school textbooks curriculum by half. >> Okay. And then
>> this is what we had talked about, right? >> Frankly, >> right? >> Okay. So, those those two those two pieces that we're talking about as removal from the capital request. >> Okay. >> Okay. Is there anything else? >> No.
>> Thank you very much for talking and I really appreciate it. And I even though I know it was hard and you're having moments and I know that not everybody's going to walk away feeling great about it, but sometimes we have to do these things. And I don't, you know, we we have some process issues we got to work out,
>> you know, not some I think some of this will be a little easier when we have the school building committee because they can be the funnel for a lot of this stuff and they can handle it and we're not there yet and we don't really have that sort of understanding of how this is. We have the warrant that's our jurisdiction and obviously you're part of that process with the with the
feasibility study. So, thank you for coming in this evening. We'll keep talking and I appreciate your time and coming in on another >> the dialogue and the exchanging of ideas. >> No, no, thank you. Thank you. It's I think that's what we need to be doing more of
them a moment to sit or they want to stay. Thank you. If not. >> All right. >> Okay. >> So, let's talk about the warrant. So, we've got a couple
things that we need to talk about with town meeting. I think probably the first thing we should probably do is just open the warrant because we're going to make some changes. We're taking an article off. We're going to move some stuff around. >> So, why don't we just do that? Um, can I get a motion to >> move to open the uh May 2026 town
meeting warrant? >> Second. >> All right. All those in favor? >> Yes. >> Yes. Yes. All right. And the goal tonight is we want to try to have um this as buttoned up as we can get it tonight and that is the the intention here. Um okay. So first thing on the
table, let's talk a little bit about what we saw from Weston and Samson here. Let's go through that part as the beginning here. Um so I guess um we're talking about the uh this proposal
and um what the article looks like. I think we might have to be asking you to do a little bit of math afterwards, but >> yeah, trying to do it now. >> Uh do you want me to move it to a different thing while you do that or >> do you need some buffer time a few minutes? >> Y >> Okay. I have a couple of things on the warrant, the arrangement of the
articles. So, I'd shared this with Frank. I'm not sure if you passed it on to the two of you, but after our last meeting, I looked at the numbering of the articles. Yes. >> I think we do have a consent agenda potentially here. >> Okay. What do you think? >> I think that if we did four, five first,
we'd number. So, what I'm proposing is that we move unpaid bills and personal bylaw, those two articles, move them up so they become six and seven. So, >> okay. >> Articles four, five, six, and seven. >> Yep. our consent agenda. Ben, I know you had mentioned that the revolving fund
had two changes and you wanted those called out. My my feeling and I think we've seen this before is the moderator can call that out and if folks want to pull it out of the consent agenda, >> but I I recognizing your >> No, no, I think that I think that is fine. I don't want to make I don't want to over complicate things. It's going to be a busy night.
>> Okay. So, first three reports uh four through seven, four of them are consent agenda. >> Okay. Then we lump together 8 through 16. Those are all of the assessors. >> Okay. >> I had asked Frank if he could speak with um the board of assessors about perhaps
a message to town meeting. It's not typical >> in my memory that we have so many. It's not an issue. It's just perhaps something that could be handled quite neatly if there was a message from the board of assessors to say here's what we're trying to accomplish through these eight articles. >> Bundle. >> Yeah. So bundle them. bundle them not
only here in the warrant but also again with a message perhaps that just brings town meeting right up to speed quickly. >> So that's through 16 17 unchanged 18 unchanged 19 uh unchanged then move 20 the DPW up to article 20. So we're
getting to it at the start of the night in terms of >> okay >> um the rest of the business. >> Yeah, I like that a lot. Okay. >> Uh and then that is it for reumbering and no other changes. I I had one thought here
>> and that is and people are going to probably not like it and probably people who have walked out aren't going to like it. I think we need to move feasibility to close to the end of the night. Um part of my concern is is that as soon as we vote on the feasibility study, uh most of the room's going to walk out. And additionally, if there needs to be a
second evening and we don't have something like that on the warrant, we're not going to be able to get anybody in the room. So, um I don't you know I I it doesn't have to be dead last, but I think I would say we should put it like pretty close to the end um
uh to ensure that we're not setting ourselves up for um you know 500 people show up and 450 of them leave >> um when we we complete that task. So I think uh you know I I'm I'm fine with what Tina was proposing. Hold on, let me
just pull up the articles here and I can certainly give you more of this information, Frank, once we once you are comfortable hearing about it. Let me see materials 13th draft warrant. Um, what I would probably
put it um I mean probably like 29ish. Mhm. >> Like before the Jasper Hill ones and after the kennels. I mean, what do you guys think here? I mean, I guess we could put the kennels after, but
>> or even maybe just maybe 26 and then 27 could be feasibility and then it's just road acceptance, animal control, and because most of that stuff, I think, is going to be pretty >> wrote. I don't think it's going to be super controversial. I think we could probably move through it pretty fast.
>> Maybe did sewer and then feasibility. So, a 20. So, we would have flipped those two and I can go through it all because I know you were doing some stuff there. >> Yeah, my Excel is frozen, which is not the ideal time. >> Not Not a great time to have that. So, I think, you know, um I'm in, uh I think the only other thing we have to sort of
consider here is that we were supposed to take off or did you already do that? >> The North Street. Yes. So, uh, town council has advised if we, uh, are not paying a sum of money for the the easement that we actually don't need to have it on the warrant since there's no appropriation needed
>> and the select board is, uh, given us rights to just accept the easement. >> Did you take it off already? >> I did. >> Okay. I think we still have to vote it because it was technically on the warrant. >> Um, so we can just like we can just take Why don't we just take a vote to remove the Norfick Street article? That way we don't have to >> article number, please. >> There is no article number because it
was taken off. So we just said we're going to remove the Northfor Street article from >> Sure. >> move to remove the Northfor Street article from the Midtown meeting warrant. >> All right. All those in favor? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Okay.
So, okay. Um and I think Tina's proposal is reasonable. >> I think I would just flip the feasibility and the uh >> Okay. And then the only things afterwards would be um the easements, the road
acceptance and the counts, which will be pretty quick, I think. I don't I don't expect too much, but I've been wrong before. Got it. Okay. and you let us know if we can continue
to talk about um I think we could take a why don't we take a vote to re uh redo the capital um to remove the $65,000 for the maintenance truck and $50,000 for
curriculum resources. So it was $15,000 total from the capital request. >> Yes. So, um, >> is that I want to make sure I get it right. Which which one we're talking about here? Is it the Kada? >> Is it what was the 100 was the 50,000? The one that's really
>> So, the uh they originally had um the uh supplies impact that I had taken off. Um but I will I will add that back on for 50,000. >> Okay. >> One second. So, this is article the
capital article. is 19 in the in the one we have that was in our packet. >> It would be So, it's the >> as listed. It's um >> Where did you take the whole thing off? >> I did. >> On the school side, we have curriculum
resources 275. We have maintenance truck 65, technology 150. >> Yeah. Well, what he said is he took it off. He took it completely off. So, there would only there should be a $50,000 line for um um I believe it's the um
uh like the the B what is it? It's the um the the the uh it's after 9:00 so of course my brain is mush. >> Well, this is the four 410th version, April 10th version. So, okay, we're removing something from this list here.
>> No, it's not from it's not in the >> So, I'll just we could just adopt a mo accept the article as written. >> Sure. Why don't we do that? because then it takes off the maintenance truck and then and then Frank, you'll just add back in the >> maintenance truck is on or off at 65,000.
>> Um >> they said they were taking off >> they said they were taking it off which um >> they said they I think they were moving it to the fall, >> but they were going to add Robert's truck back on. >> Add Robert's truck back on.
>> Yeah. Which isn't Yeah. Which was that's why I'm just trying to make sense of all that. >> Do you want to take a two-minute break? Stretch break. >> Sure. Let's take it to Mr. >> Okay, move to >> Yeah, we don't even need to take a motion. We're just gonna take a take a five. >> Tom, could you just mute us? Thank you.
Okay. >> Okay. Okay. So, >> three motions for you. >> Okay. Let's let's uh let's So, we're going to let's let's just go through it. You know, we're going to do uh we're going to reorder the articles. We are going to uh have a motion on capital and
we have a motion on the DPW uh ballot question. >> Correct. >> Okay. Okay. >> All righty. So, move to reorder the warrant articles to gosh, >> you can say as presented because I mean
>> as presented this evening, moving unpaid bills and personal bylaws up to six and seven, moving the DPW article up to article 20, and flipping the feasibility study to now be article 26, uh, with the sewer article to now be
25. So to reorder the warrant articles as presented. >> Seconded. >> Uh all those in favor? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> And the expectation is is that four, five, six, and seven can be a consent agenda. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> I have a motion to change the article
19, the capital budget, removing the maintenance truck uh on the part of the schools department, removing the $65,000 request, replacing that request with a $95,000 DPW work truck. Seconded. >> Is that what we
>> Yep. >> That's what we said. Yeah. Okay. >> Changing that bottom number by $20,000. >> Okay. >> To 1 million243,000. >> Okay. And that's what we're >> Sorry. Do you mind uh do you mindreeing
that total? move to amend article 19 the capital budget to remove the maintenance truck from the school's department at $65,000 and replace that with a DPW work truck at $95,000 updating the total amount to $1,243,000.
>> I think the only thing also is the um adding the $50,000 for the >> Hold on. I don't remember like adding the the $95,000 truck. What about I thought we said a $25,000 truck, which is a delta. >> It was the difference between the 65 and
the 95. I believe it was >> We're We're pulling back from October. We pushed to October a DPW work truck. >> Okay. >> And we're flipping that. So, we are removing the school's truck and we are placing the DPW truck on there.
>> Okay. >> That's the motion. The thought being that if we could buy two vehicles, one in the spring and one in the fall. >> Yep. >> Or we could buy the one that we wanted to buy in the fall in the spring and
then the schools would be able to sort of inherit the truck that DPW would be shedding. >> Oh, so the so the point is is they're taking it off by by doing it that way. >> Yep. >> So we'd spend a little bit more money up front, but in the over the course of, you know, the calendar year, we'd be
spending less. We think that the DPW probably just given what the that it's going to be traveling sort of just between campuses and not doing as much as the of the work that the DPW truck is doing, you probably get a couple more years out of it in that capacity.
>> Okay. And that's that's kind of what we're that's all everything else will be okay with that. >> Yes, we've discussed uh we discussed that with the schools. They'll be they'll be comfortable with that. >> Okay. >> Sorry with those those two changes.
I do have a total of303. So, I have $100,000 for the dump truck, 70,000 for uh the catch basin cleaner, 50,000 for the ambulance equipment, 20,000 for the building back battery backup system for uh the facilities uh/
police departments, the DPW pickup truck at 95,000, um the K through five curriculum resources for 275,000, high school supplies at 50,000, uh
150,000 for the curricul ulum resources uh for science technology infrastructure 150,000 uh and then >> the two water the two water ones 300,000 for plant improvements and 43,000 for um
uh the pickup the water pickup truck. >> So you have a total of >> I have 1,33,000. >> Okay. Why don't we make the motion that and then if you could just double check that because I know there's been a couple movements here. We want to make sure we get that number right.
>> Yep. >> You know, we we can we can approve the the items. Just making sure that bottom line. >> Okay. So moved. >> Second. >> All right. All those in favor? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> All right. So capital is done. So the last piece is the
uh debt exclusion to fund vote to pursue the debt exclusion to fund our street. Before we do that, just like any thoughts, any concerns, questions here at this point? I mean, there's still obviously work to do. There's still
public education to do, but are people what are people thinking? >> This ballot question with 60% being um exempt reflects the school's request proposal to remove $350,000 from the capital
expend uh capital appropriation for the DBW project. >> Yes. So, the total uh the total project cost is as Weson and Samson presented earlier is uh 48,724,830. We would sort we'd be sort of buying
down the amount needed to borrow um by $5.65 million. So, that would be the $6 million that we just talked about a little bit a little bit earlier, less 350,000 that would be going towards um the schools. the high school feasibility study rather.
>> Um as the working group in 2023 um suggested uh the plan was to have $17.25 million barred for within the levy um leaving a $25,824,000
to be uh barred for via excluded debt. the first year um of that debt service would be roughly and and this this ratio would continue 60% of the uh of the annual debt service.
So that would be the question that um the voters would be asked at the the ballot in May. Um >> how much so the amount that's within the levy what does that look like? >> That is roughly one point. So in the
first year it's $1.265 265 million for reference within the fiscal 27 budget. We're planning for $1.8 million for the capital set aside. >> Um that >> and then we have the and there's also when is the the police department 350kish that comes off pretty soon, right?
>> Fiscal year 29 I believe. >> Okay. And that's going to go back to probably >> um I'm I believe that's exempt debt, but I will >> I think it's in the levy. >> Oh, is it? Okay. I thought it was exempt, but I will I will double check that then because I that is
>> maybe I might be wrong, but I thought it was >> that is roughly I want to say 360 340ish that neighborhood >> next year I believe it's this year I think it was 363 next year it's 343 >> and the ballot will have additional information just like we do comments for the warrant articles. There'll be what
you just described will be written up for like the the ballot question itself is as written but there'll be additional information >> presented to the voter yes on election day >> uh on the ballot itself. Well, the language this is the lang like the we have to have the language like very
precise because of the way the debt exclusion works but there can be a little bit of narrative there too like what this is what it's doing and stuff like that >> I believe right >> I don't I thought that the ballot had to be very >> well it's very just like in this is the
question and it could be a little bit more narrative but particularly we you know have a little setup outside >> that we could certainly do >> we have a setup outside Yeah. >> Yeah. I think though that the the ballot is has to be just the question though.
>> Okay. >> Okay. Um we have a motion. Uh I'm just going to say ahead of time. I'm going to abstain from the vote. Uh on the Okay. >> For the point that I think this needs more time. I think that we should discuss this in much more detail. I
don't I don't necessarily subscribe to the fact that May needs to be the time to get this done. >> What the the the det? Oh, the the matching piece of this. >> Okay. >> On the feasibility study. So, I'm >> So, you're going to abstain from this? >> Well, because it's it's contingent upon
>> the 60%. If I'm understanding this correctly, what we're the ballot question is contingent upon us give the the town freeing up $350,000 of capital money for >> Yeah. >> Am I overthinking? I could be No, I mean I do think that the 300,000 and that was
part of what I was trying to figure out before my Excel crash was that um the 300,000 I don't know was going to change the overall 60% all that much. >> Okay. >> Um >> it's all like 1.5% maybe. >> Yeah. In that neighborhood.
>> Yeah. So I think you know we could maybe take it down to like 59% should that $300,000 be back in play >> or excuse me 350. I mean, you know, and if you if you feel more comfortable abstaining, that's certainly your prerogative.
>> Let me just think this through for a moment. Can we come back to this one? >> Sure. >> Okay. >> All right. Um, so we have that. Um, so I guess the other one we have to decide on is is there any other changes to the feasibility study? >> We sort of have a funding mechanism and
most of that what like we were talking about would come in the motion. So it wouldn't necessarily be, >> you know, I don't I I still feel the 2.5 million as a squishy is is way like as a as a data person that is way too un much unknown in there but I also recognize
that it's better to air a little high is what it is doing doing maths in my head when I do math in my head there's like ears so >> I just have a lot of hair in my head you can't see it
>> um Okay. And I I don't think there's any other I don't think there's any other changes that other than >> Nope. Um so, um as Tina mentioned, it's I'm sure we'll address the comments and such at a later
date, but >> yeah. Well, we can talk about another business, but how how about we do it's not going to give by a ton of time. Why don't I do this? Why don't I We're still still open. Why don't I see if there's any public comment? It is 9:55. So that way we can sort of move forward and give you a couple minutes. >> Thank you. Um, any public comment in the
room? Is there any public comment on the Zoom call this evening? Please raise your hand on with the reaction button. I know it's not it's it's late and I apologize, but if there's any reactions here or uh public comment.
>> Okay. >> All right. Hearing none, are you do you go ahead? >> We can go back to the motion if you'd like. >> All right. Let's go back to that motion. I move to direct the town clerk to place on the ballot of the annual town election on May 19th, 2026 the following question. Shall the town of Hollison be allowed to exempt from the provisions of
Proposition 2 and a half so-called the amounts required to pay 60% of the principal and associated interest payable in each year of the bond issued in order to design, permit, and permit and construct a municipal facility for public works at the site of 63 Arch Street, currently known as the site of
the Hollist Highway Department. >> Second. All right. All those in favor? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Okay. Okay. So, we move back to the >> Tina. Thank you. >> Sure. >> Any anything else before we close the warrant?
>> All right. Hearing none. I'll take a motion to close the town meeting warrant and we're not intending to open it again. We're going to be finished with it. We can when we sign it, but we'll cross that. We a little bit of time before we have to sign. Okay.
>> Okay. move to close the annual town meeting warrant uh today, April 13th, with the changes discussed during this meeting. >> Second. >> All right. All those in favor? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> So, I think the the thing we need to do is we need to figure out uh when when do we need to sign it? Can we sign it at
our next meeting? Is that appropriate? Is that is that the right time? And then um uh comments, making sure that the comments are um correct. >> So, I think those are the two main things we want to make sure we have those buttoned up. Um we um if for some
reason I can't remember what it is and it's late so I don't want to go won't go too far but if we need to pop in an exe a zoom session to just sort of approve it to just sort of be done or if you need us to come in to physically sign it just obviously if Donna tells me to jump
I say how hi so um just uh we can uh address it if we need to do before the our next meeting >> sure >> but I think we're done with the Deep breath. Okay. Uh, select board member updates. Tina, >> three things. Uh, spoke with chief police, Chief of Police, uh, Chief Stone
today, uh, to start an education campaign for May, May 1st. The town is doing a bike rodeo on May 2nd. May is bike month. We're updating our traffic rules and regulations to address ebikes, uh, common sense policy changes. So HPD is going to work on an education
campaign that will look like sandwich boards that kind of go out throughout the community hopefully on school grounds as well uh with some you know updated information on uh ebike safety. So I spoke with the chief about that today. Uh Frank and I are meeting tomorrow down at the state house with
the office executive office of uh housing and livable communities to kind of talk about opportunities here in Hollist uh following our conversation with the Senate President when she met with us in March. That's tomorrow at 1:30. And then on May 5th, it's a Tuesday, from 9:30 to 12, Hollist is
hosting Walk Massachusetts. They are doing a walk audit academy. Uh we'll be using upper town hall. It is open to the general public um broadly throughout the region. So it won't just be Hollist folks. Um and it is part of the Boston
Metropolitan um Boston Metropolitan Planning Organization's vision zero work. So very proud to see Hollist uh host an event like that. Three things, that's it. >> Thank you, D. David, >> that was really good. Very interesting stuff. Uh I I have a request for a future.
>> Okay. >> Um love to discuss how we can be more rigorous as a board requesting information and analysis from other boards and committees. Um I think tonight there were a couple of points where I felt like there's a lot of
conversations happening between individual members sometimes chairs um and it is very hard to sus out if the opinions being talked about are those of the chairs of the committee board of parts of the committee and the board um and even though that I think is it makes
it maybe a little less practical I think it would be a really useful idea to have in mind like how do we actually communicate request information in a way that makes sure that we actually get information in a written format with a sense of what the broad opinion is and
the minority opinion on board committees so that we have some kind of sticky information that can be transmitted and it isn't just verbal. Um I'm not sure exactly how to do that but I think that that'd be a worthwhile thing for us to do and maybe that formalizing having
more of these discussions where multiple you know a joint meeting. Um, I also want a particular eye there towards specifically not asking these boards and committees to say this is our voted opinion. Needs to be something a little less formal. >> Yep.
>> Um, that doesn't hold anyone to the fire and leaves room for that. I I just feel like it's very difficult to have good governance when information runs asymmetrically. Yes. Um, and it's unclear who calls the shots and who has reviewed the shots to even have consent
about the shot. And I say that even including us, right, with humility. Definitely been on on the receiving end, the giving end of that at times, but just seems like a worthy conversation. >> Um, I I love that you say that because that's kind of dovetales into what I've
uh got. Um, I I would take it a step further because I I recognize what h like tonight sort of was a reflection of my frustration over the years of the fact that most of the conversations that I'm winding up having
to solve problems are Dan and I talking on the phone. >> Yep. >> In my car. And that's not how business should and be done. And it's not really effective. That's not to say that we shouldn't have that conversation, but that's not a business conversation. That's a hey, what do you think? Let's
share some information. Let's talk. And I agree with you that there needs to be something there and I think we have to sort of talk through it. And one of the things like I think it's showing like I don't love the liaison system. I feel like it is a very limited system. It is an information sharing system. It is not a pathway for consensus. It's not a way
to create agreement between boards. And I think sometimes that is lacking. And I think we need to sort of rethink things like town meeting. One of the things I hear is when they see the finance committee and the select board arguing. They see us as the same entity and yet they're like, why are they fighting? And it's like, you know, people don't understand the inside baseball. They
don't have to. They shouldn't have to. But there needs to be mechanisms by which agre disagreements are articulated and brought forward. And I think what what I was thinking about and you know what I want to propose is to say something like, okay, we've passed the level three budget. We send it to the
finance committee. We say send us any questions or comments in advance of our next meeting. And it's not bring your liaison. It's no the finance committee needs to put them together and send them to us. There needs to be a formal process by which boards and
committees can disagree. And this is beyond the conversation this evening. I think that I I think one of the things we see a lot of times we see very good vertical conversations, the horizontal conversations between boards is lacking. And I see this at times like I've seen this in other places as well. And this is something I want to bring forward in
my envisioning future Hollist conversations because part of that's good governance and trying to figure out ways to get boards to talk with each other in constructive mechanisms. Tonight was messy, but at least I felt like it was something. And I asked them on Friday and they came today. And I appreciate that. And I appreciate that
it might not have been the prettiest and easiest thing. It might not have been the most productive, but at least I felt like it was a step in the direction. and I want to get more towards that. So I think there's a bigger conversation to have. >> I to your question or request I think that the town manager act offers us an
opportunity and I I would start there >> uh in terms of uh the professionalizing of how government works here in Hollist. that was for me lacking at the table tonight was uh the the dialogue that was being run through town staff and having
town staff guide the recommendations back to the refle respective boards. Uh I think that that is the area by which the strongest communication is built. We have fantastic people who work here in the town of Hollist. We need to let them do their jobs well and advise their
boards well. Uh, and I think that removes much of the dialogue that we had tonight in my that's my honest opinion. But I I think where we are new to the town manager act, I would go there first >> to see how do we use that to strengthen communication among boards and committees uh and use it as the tool
that it it really can be and rely on the professional expertise that we have sitting within our um >> wonderful employees. And I I I do agree with the the our fantastic employees. And I think uh let's uh sort we can sort of table this and let's put it up for a
deeper discussion like after we kind of get through the next few weeks and um talk amongst ourselves, come up with some ideas and then start bringing in other entities as as required. >> Second thing, not >> I didn't mean to. I I thought you were
done. >> Not to be controversial and again must >> be controversial. most junior member of the board years and go ahead some of this stuff. >> It it is my understanding >> tonight we had a conversation >> um with Ken who I think was trying to do his best and he mentioned something
about um trying to be a certain amount below the budget for our expenditures. So that to me sounds like fiscal policy. >> Yes, >> it is my belief that the select board sets fiscal policy and the finance
committee advises on policy does not suggest it. It reviews it. It can suggest funding sources if it gives multiple funding sources, but it cannot say this is the funding source because that would be setting a policy. >> So I guess what I'm saying is shouldn't
we set if there is such an amount, >> a target should that not be ours to set and then they tell us >> how that can be accomplished? >> Well, I think you know two things along that line. One is the town manager act explicitly talks about revenue and it's an agreement between the town manager
and the finance committee. Um and uh I don't love that but it was a compromise that I had to put forward to get the finance committee's buy in on the board and at least that way there's some agency between both and one can't sabotage the other because then you just won't get anything done. >> Is that different from the fiscal
policy? So yeah. Well, so the the thing the point you're trying to make here too is to take it a step further, which is to talk about revenue. And the thing is is you know a >> when I first got on the finance committee, there was a financial policy from the finance committee, which is not considered a town policy until the
select board adopts it. The select board adopts it. And we have taken to saying that the finance committee and the select board can agree on these parameters and feel comfortable with it and have that and you know at the end of the day, unless the select board adopts it, it's not town polic. It's just a recommendation from the finance
committee. >> Um and um you know I I think there's some cracks in the process and I hear what you're saying and you know there's some issues that need to be addressed there. And I think that's part of what
we need to sort of put some of these issues on the table. And part of what I was trying to do with Ken tonight was to get him to say those things so I can say we disagree. understand because what generally happens is that those things come forward at town meeting, right? >> And that's the first time sort of that
that process happens and that is a breakdown. If if we're having that disagreement on town meeting floor and we have not had a conversation previously, that's a breakdown. >> I actually don't disagree with Dr. Shada's intent there. I I mean it more from the point of view of >> I feel it is a process failure, not necessarily a bad policy.
>> Yeah. And well, that's the thing. is that like we should adopt the policy around that >> but we should have a conversation about the policy and it should be a mutual policy. It should not be Dr. deciding >> right >> that you know and and and the finance committee deciding at the last minute to do so that's
>> even if it's a great idea >> even if it's a great idea then that should have been it should have been in the none of us have heard any of it wasn't in the letter at the beginning it wasn't in any of the processes previously it was brought forward at the end and that's that is it's not that it's a bad idea it's just the process was working
>> that's kind of the umbrella of my other business thing which is that I think we have a lot of really smart good people all trying to do good things >> and there's just kind of like understanding uh a general person's agreement about a lot of ways of communicating and that has been causing little little waves here and there.
There's no reason we shouldn't formalize that. >> We need to we need to fix that. >> That's all I got, sir. >> Thank you very much. I I kind of gave mine. So, at this point, >> let's get through it. Warrants. >> Uh yes, warrants. Oh, this one we have to do. I was going to say I can forgo my
update for tonight, but uh the uh warrant we've had just one signed since we met last week. Yep. 2,535 uh $2,535,161.78 stated April 2nd, 2026. >> Excellent. >> Um do you have anything pressing in the >> Nothing pressing.
>> Okay. Uh board business. Uh anybody object to the consent agenda this evening? >> None. Uh I will go quickly real quick just because we got a nice letter of interest. We will be receiving a lot more of these. Dear Hollson Select Board, I hope this letter finds you well. I'm interested in volunteering
with the Holl Cultural Council and understand the position is a three-year commitment with monthly meetings. As a Holl resident and teaching artist, curator, and former fine art gallery, I believe experience and interests align well with the position. Formerly served on the Boilston Cultural Council prior to moving to Hollist and understand the
responsibility of a volunteer um commitment. Thank you for this opportunity. I look forward to hearing from you. This is from Cheryl Clinton who has unanimous support of the cultural council for appointment this evening. So move to accept the consent agenda. >> Second. All those in favor?
>> Yes. >> Yes. >> Thank you to Cheryl. >> Thank you, Cheryl. >> Thank you. >> Uh other business, Tina. >> Uh none at this hour. Thank you. >> I I do. We have a um we had one more. Uh we only had one thing in the board
business, which is appointment of Cheryl Point to the cultural council. >> I'm missing something. >> Yep. Nope. You are totally right. Okay. Uh Tina is good. Damon, you're good. Uh two quick points. Uh first is is that I
think we do need to set a time for a forum uh for a DW just to have another conversation about it. Uh let's do that offline. We can schedule so we can have that on email. We don't it's not an open meeting law violation to have that conversation. So rather than trying to go through it tonight. And the second thing is I still see her on there. Jess
Omen. Um there's been conversation about um appointment um for the school committee open seat. Um and I'll put my put it out in an open session that I am not in favor of an appointment uh before
the election. I believe it is um important >> to wait for the process to reconcile and we can make the appointment uh after the election has been concluded. And uh that is my personal opinion. Uh, you guys want to weigh in and say anything, that's fine. If you don't, don't worry
about it. But, um, I'm not intending to schedule anything and I don't intend to entertain anything. I think we need to wait for um, the voters to have their say and then we can talk about it after that. >> It's also uh, logistically it would be a significant challenge to do that well.
Yes. >> Uh, as we head into town meeting and the election and soar >> I would not direct staff resources to this as a priority given everything else we have going on. >> Yes. So, I'm I'm with you. I believe the candidate mentioned who's online completely capable, but I think it's best to wait off until
>> Yeah. And I I think that's I think that's the best to do. So, um uh after that, uh Frank, do you have any other business tonight? >> No. >> All right. I will take a motion to journ at 10:11 p.m. Second. >> All right. All those in favor? I. >> Yes. >> All right. We are done. Have a great evening. We'll see you again on the
27th.