stopped. Let me officially Yep. So, that's now the recording has started. Um, this is the park commission meeting of February 3rd, 2026. It is 10:02 a.m. and I'm calling this meeting to order. Since we are remote, I do need to do a quick roll call of our park
commission members. Um, Chris Sullivan >> here. >> Marian Mascary >> here. Colleen Shapiro >> here >> and I am here as well. So we actually have a full commission um here as well. Um let me just read what I have to read.
So we are official and then um I'll have everybody else introduce themselves. In accordance with the requirements of the open meeting law. Please be advised that this meeting is being recorded and may eventually be broadcast over Lunenberg public access and uploaded to the Lunberg Access YouTube channel. Um this
meeting is being held um via Zoom. If we have any technical problems, um, we may have to abandon the meeting, but we're going to cross our fingers and hope that we don't. Um, and I don't anticipate any, um, topics to pop up, so I don't I'm not even going to read that part.
Um, who do we have with us, um, from the skate park today? >> You've got myself, Anthony Coyo. >> Great. >> Uh, Tom Bodkin, I'm uh, council for the skatepark. >> Great.
>> Uh, Griffin Cow. So a board member on the skate park. >> All right. >> And Greg Roy, I'm a I guess a consultant for the skate park. >> Okay, great. >> But also a father of one of the skatepark kids, full >> disclosure. Yeah, that that's that's who
we I do know that. Um, also with us, is Mr. Powell still with us? Just so we can acknowledge that he's here. >> Yeah, Steve Powell helping out with the skate park. >> Great. Thank you. Um, on the town side with us, I can do the quick introductions. Here we have Caesar Nuzo who is the chair of the select board. We
have town manager uh Jennifer Warren Diamond. Um and we have um town council Adam Costa. Um as well as Christopher Ruth who is our facilities director. Um all right. So the reason for this
meeting is um today is for to try to start resolving a couple of issues that have um come up. Um, one of them being we need to settle on a final price um so that we have the skate park has a number that they're working with for bonding
reasons and to also navigate what seems to be a new um idea coming from the skate park side of things um on how to do some of this bonding. Um so let's start off with um let's start off with the pricing um of this. I had provided a
document to you folks yesterday that had come from Dillis and Roy. Um I want to be clear on something. This project is not a town project. This project is um being done privately on public land and this is not something that we deal with
on an everyday basis. So I am going to be relying heavily on our town council um as well as our town manager to provide any um honest feedback on whether or not um what direction we should be moving in. Um, so the document that came out yesterday, um, or that I
shared again yesterday, um, has a project price tag, if this was a private project of $1.14 million. Am I correct in that? >> Madam Chair, can you just verify? I see I see Mr. Roy Ning, can you verify that
that's the price on to be completed outside of public sector? >> That is our estimate of should should it should it be bid or should it need to be constructed with public >> thank you >> by public publicly bid um using you know
public procurement laws. That's our estimate as what that cost would be. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Sorry, I was looking for my mute button. >> Yeah, that's okay. >> Um, >> and yes, that sounds correct. I don't
have that document written in front of me, but that does sound It was right around 1.1 million, I believe. So, you said 1.14. >> Yeah, let me see if I can um I have way too many documents open. >> It's one 1.143705
>> 60. >> I can find it. I just I should have had it open. Um so that was your subtotal was 91496448. Um you had a mobilization demobilization of 5%. Um engine engineering services during bidding and construction admin
price of 10%. >> Um a contingency of 10% which brought the total to 1,143,7560. >> Sounds right. >> Okay. Um when the the town met, I was not actually at this meeting. Um I'm going
to ask town manager to just confirm for me. Um when they met and they had DPW director and facilities director or Chris if you want Chris Ruth if you want to chime in on this. Um they also discussed um the pricing. Is this about
where >> um you expected it to come out or were you expecting more or less than that? >> Sure. You want me to? >> It doesn't I don't care who answers me. >> Okay. Thank you. Oh, no.
>> Okay, there we go. All right. So um you know for everybody's edification because I don't think that everybody might have been looped in on all of the conversations. One of the difficulties in evaluating the total amount of the bond here is that it's not a project
that the town has been working um on to with the designing and the design team, right? And so we don't have consultants that are working for the town that are advising as we would if this was um one of our own projects. Um and that's
quite, you know, intentional that we can't have that level of involvement because it's not a town project. So um in attempting to determine uh what an adequate bond would be, I initially researched uh some projects that had
been completed um in the past several years by municipalities. Some of the skate parks were much larger, some were smaller. Um but based on that um I said that a $ 1.5 million um estimate I thought for a bond would
be appropriate. Um in response um there was a lot of work done by the skate park folks to um identify what their costs uh would be and because they are looking at the design and they know what their design is and what exactly what they are building. Um and so in those reviews um
the the DPW director and uh facilities director did have some responses that they thought that things were off. Um but I believe that this this new figure is closer to where we thought um based on the numbers that they had submitted
might be reasonable. Chris, do you want to Chris Ruth? I don't want to put you on the spot, but in the case that I didn't say anything, >> I think you summed it up pretty good. I mean, it's the numbers certainly a lot closer. You know, one of our main concerns was that if we did have to take
over the project, it triggers a whole bunch of stuff of, you know, an architect looking at it again and the bidding process, you know, it's not as simple as in the private world where you just hire someone else to finish. Does that make sense to everybody? Especially on the parks commission what
we're looking at for a number. >> Yeah. If we're in line with what our estimate was, then you're pretty you're pretty close. Like >> I think it makes sense. >> We we don't I just want to be clear. >> Sorry, maybe I can just We don't have an
estimate. Um we can't have a true estimate because we don't have a design team working on this. What we have is other public projects at the $1.5 million average. Um, and we have
an estimate that's been prepared by Dillis and Roy. The town, to be clear, does not have an estimate. >> Right. What I Well, I guess I didn't mean that, you know, close to our estimate. I meant based on what what investigation has been done, what this
could cost, we're pretty close to what Greg produced, I think. >> Yeah. I mean, if I may, um, I think what town manager just said is absolutely true, and it's important that the town understands that. Typically the town
would be paying my invoice for this and I'd be providing an estimate uh that you know that as a consultant to the town. That very good distinction. That is not what you have here. So I want to be very fair about that that I am I am a pro bono consultant working for the skate
park. Um but um I did want to be I did want to say in response that the analysis that we put it put into this is a typical analysis that we would do for the for this type of work. So we're not doing something funny here or trying to you know uh make
things work. We put the I realized there was some back and forth process with with your staff and things to get this thing right, but we we put the level of effort in as if this was going to be um you know an estimate that was would be supporting a a bid a publicly bid package or a bond estimate for like a
subdivision road that needs public procurement type of things. So um I just wanted to add that commentary. >> Thank you. >> Um yes, because this is a private project. Um the only way the town would be stepping in on all of this is if for
some reason the project didn't get completed. Um that would mean that their the skate park contractors either walked away, went belly up or something happened on their end of things. Um so um
Mr. Costa Chris and town manager, does anybody see any issue with us supporting the 1.1437560 um on this final number? >> So, Madam Chair, if I could, >> please.
>> So, I I think that this is really a matter for the the parks commission's discretion. Uh to the point that the town manager made and I think has just been echoed to a certain extent by by Mr. Roy. Um this is not that different from let's say a private subdivision, a
private project, a project in with which the town would not affiliate itself or in which it would not become involved except for an unusual circumstance where maybe infrastructure was partly completed or roadways were only partly installed and then a developer were to
go bankrupt or to walk away from a project for other reasons and the town would find itself in a position where it needed to step in to complete that infrastructure to ensure not just the protection of those who might have already bought into the subdivision, but other other public infrastructure,
neighboring properties, etc. And in those circumstances, what a planning board would typically require is what you now have for Mr. Roy, which is an estimate from the applicant's consultant, the applicant's engineer, uh, estimating the costs using prevailing wage charts and and other
publicly available information. But the next step, and that's this is a step that has been omitted as part of this process, is that the planning board would then engage its third-party consultant, its peerreview consultant, which at that point in the process, in the case of a subdivision review, that
individual will have been involved for many months, having already reviewed the engineering and the storm water and different aspects of that of that subdivision. That same engineer would review what gets submitted by the applicants consultant to verify that the numbers are accurate. not suggesting
that Mr. Roy is cooking the books or um or or coming up with numbers that that that benefit his client or his proono client for any particular reason. Um but simply because you're doing your due diligence and it's that system of checks and balances that exists for a good reason. I've had circumstances where the
peerreview consultant will come back and say, "Mr. Roy, numbers are are correct and maybe he's even overestimating some of these costs." I've also had circumstances where that consultant comes back and says based upon maybe familiarity with municipal governance and some intricacies associated with
public uh infrastructure and related projects, that consultant might come back and say, "No, the number is not 1.1 or 1.2 or 1.3. It's actually 2.1 or 2.2 or 2.3 and here's why." And that's simply information that you don't have. Now, I can appreciate this is a somewhat
unique project because it is a project that is um being done in the form of a uh it's a it's a it's a a nonprofit funded project that is anticipated to be gifted to the town um by a group of
well-intended individuals. You've got um maybe proono council. You've certainly got a proono engineer that's doing work. So, I appreciate that this um it's not an applesto apples comparison with that subdivision I described a moment ago, but um the the commission does have a a
a responsibility and really a fiduciary duty to ensure that it is comfortable with the data that it's received and that it's going to be relying upon and determining the amount of the bond that that it'll it'll demand. Because if if it requires a $1.1 million bond and the
the the worst case scenario does play out and it it finds out that the amount of the work is really 2.1, um then the fingers that are going to be pointed are not going to be pointed at me or the town manager or Greg or Tom or his client. They're going to
be pointed at the parks commission. So, >> okay. I don't >> great. >> So this doesn't go in front of the planning board. So I don't even know how to rectify like to make sure that those
concerns that the valid concerns that were just raised are are met because we it where it is a private project. Um >> and my understanding madam chair is that we cannot get involved at that level. Is that correct? That, Adam, even if even if the
the parks commission had funds to hire an engineer, a third party engineer to review that that review of the private party's plans and their designs and their work could potentially now trigger issues around procurement.
>> Well, that's that's always been um the dance that that we've been involved in since this project got underway. And there were opinions provided and advice given at the outset relative to um the roles of the nonprofit organization and its consultants and the much more
limited role of the town. Uh the town cannot um dictate the parameters of the project at issue. The town cannot uh sort of inextricably intertwine itself with the day-to-day um construction and and bringing to fruition this project.
When it does so, it becomes a public project. And when it becomes a public project, there are all sorts of other requirements under Massachusetts general law that need to be satisfied. Uh and this is not the first case, not the first case in Lunberg, certainly not the first case in which I've been involved. Uh where there is an expectation that a
project uh that is being undertaken by let's say a private nonprofit organization will be gifted to the town. uh but the town cannot involve itself early on during the construction of that project um in a way that that that intertwines it um with the with with the
operations of that that private entity. Having said all of that, because I was able to liken it, as I just did, to a subdivision review, nobody argues in the subdivision context that uh the planning board is somehow involving itself in a private project in a way that subjects that private project to bidding laws or
prevailing wage simply because it's requiring uh a bond or it's requiring a peer review to ensure that the bond is correct. So, to be candid, I don't have a concern if the if the parks commission had funds available to it. I'm not sure that it does, but I will defer to the commission in that regard. But if it had
funds available to it to engage a third party consultant, a a peer of um of Mr. Roy, somebody who does the same sorts of things he does, to review his estimate and the um sources of information he's relying upon in issuing that estimate,
and simply advise the parks commission whether that estimate is high, low, or appropriate. >> Okay. Um Chris Ruth Do you have any So, if if this was something that we as a commission said
we wanted a peer review on, um that bill would be coming to you. Um do we have funding for it? I have no idea what the cost would be. >> Um I'm sure we could find some out of the revolving account if if that was
what we were looking to do. I know typically we're paying an estimate of this side. probably cost us around three grand. A peer review would probably be slightly less if I >> from what I remember of projects that I've seen go recently. >> Okay.
Parks Commission, what is your >> Sorry, Greg. Give me one second. Let me just get the commission's um thoughts on on where we are right now. >> Besides the monetary cost, there's the time cost. And I know this has already been, you know, we've already gone through the first contract, had to redo
the second contract or initiate a second contract. Um, so that's one concern for me. Um I also think it's not Dillis and Royy's first rodeo uh that has weight with me and also
um that I you know I believe that given the unique nature of the project that it is not apples to apples um versus other projects. So I just have a a a strong
faith in people that have been committed over the years um are act you know acting in good faith and um ability >> first or Colleen >> um I don't I don't disagree with
Maryanne I you know I agree on on a lot of that that um you know certainly I I have great faith in the estimate from Dillis and Roy and everybody's intentions and everything. However, having lived in town and been involved
in town committees and everything for years and years, um I lean towards thinking that we need to do our due diligence. And you know, I hate to say even for
perception, but I think you know where it does it will come down to the parks commission if things go sideways on this and the decision we made that anything we can do to, you know, ensure the town that we doted
our eyes and crossed our tees, you know, could be helpful. >> Thank you, Colleen. Chris Sullivan. >> So, do we have I mean, do we have the funds
to do that due diligence like like it's we're pretty strapped, I think. Um, so yeah, I hear what Colleen's saying. I and certainly what Maryanne said, like I I have a lot of faith in in and trust in in the group that's putting this project
forward in Dillis and Roy as far as their estimate. Um, you know, I I you know, I think we're in a good spot that way. Um, >> either way, >> I get the the um perception they're making sure we're covering, you know, covering our bases
for sure. Um, are the funds there to do that? And if the funds aren't there to do that, then then where are we at? I guess >> the funds are there to do that. I know I have a general idea of what's in our revolving account at a minimum. Um, so the funds the funds are definitely
there. um you know it would increase I don't know what the timeline would then change to um in terms of how long it would take to get that peer review done. Um >> Mr. Roy may know anecdotally
Mr. Roy, do you know anecdotally? >> Yeah, I don't know if you if you if you called up someone like Graves, I mean that that peer reviews for the planning board, my guess is you're probably looking at four weeks to get into their pipeline.
So, the the thing, if I may, Madam Chair, um >> is Madam Chair. You two keep calling me Madam Chair. I don't even go by Mrs. Bernard. So, I do it good, guys. I do it because you hate it. That's why I do it. >> Well, thank you. Thank you. >> I'm not gonna lie.
>> I am providing transportation this afternoon. Just Just keep that in mind. >> Thanks for the confirmation on that, by the way. But anyway, um um so I I do not disagree with what um
um attorney cost said at all. um peer review is a normal part of of the process here and and you know if there's a mechanism to do it um we're we don't object in theory to doing it but I I will also point out that in a lot of towns we work in
the the town staff reviews our estimates um Actton's one of them um you know a larger city would be one of them so I guess I'd like to know I I understand that we are a a non-town uh organization that put
forth um this document that that town manager passed off to Chris and Bill to review, but that Chris and Bill uh their job does not include reviewing, you know, non nonprofit skate park estimates. But I guess I so I'm
sensitive to the fact that perhaps you know we still might want to get a little bit more advice on this but or or review on this but I guess I'd like to hear from and maybe we can't nail this down today but does Bill do do Bill and Chris feel like like we need this or does Bill
do Bill and Chris feel like they have reviewed enough of the information that they can that they can feel comfortable with it? And the answer to that might be no but the answer to that might be yes. And if that's the case, you know, you have, you know, bills of PE. He's got the same credentials as me and Chris has
been doing this a while. So, I just pass that off. It's not like it hasn't been reviewed from the town's level, from the town standpoint, >> but I also don't want to put anybody in the B. I mean, I understand the situation that we're in and that resources are thin and that, you know,
um, Bill's job description isn't to go through with a fine tooth comb and check all the, >> you know, um, eyes and te's that we dotted and crossed and our estimate. So, >> yeah, >> but I just I bring that up. >> Yep. Chris Ruth, that one was directed
towards you. Do you have any feedback on that? Uh I mean I I guess where we the difficult part is where we need to stay kind of arms length away from it. And at the end of the day the concern is is this total enough to cover our ass if
the state parks fall flat on their face and from what I've seen and who was involved chances of it falling flat on their face early on where we need the full full million are pretty slim. It's more likely that if something fails, it's going to be closer to the end and the million covered is where I see. I'm
not the lawyer. I'm not the one that deals with the insurance companies. You know, I think the select board or town manager or the parks commission should make the final call, but at the number it's at, I'm more comfortable than I was. >> Okay.
Trying to process this in real time is not the easiest for me. I apologize. >> Yeah. So what's it? So I guess there's a qu like the the bond is to just just I guess wrap my head around the bond is to finish the project or is it to return it to its original? >> No, that's a t that's another topic of
discussion. But let's just but if if we start if I may, sorry to butt in, but if we start the project, Chris, um, and we get 75% of the way done through the schedule of values in the spreadsheet and and we,
uh, we run out of money, pasta, overruns, whatever. The worst the worst the worst of the worst happens. the bond is in place or the security I'm going to call it is in place that the town could could exercise to step in and finish the remaining 25% of
the project. Um so or whatever percentage we're at when the when the bad thing happens. So, um, so if we were to walk away and not finish the project in a satisfactory manner, the bond is there, uh, to protect the town to be
able to have funds available in sufficient amount to go in and finish the project. >> So, do they do they in any way, I guess, as far as the like the estimate that we're looking at here, this is the cost to do the entire project. >> That's right. And then and then does the
bond in any way take into account >> like it's a million- dollar bond or whatever. Do they take into account in any way the money that's already been put into the project? Like does that count towards the bond? >> So that's what I wanted to talk about next. So So two one thing before I get
to that though. So what would happen if let's just say arbitrarily the project's 75% there's 25% left and the town decides we're going to exercise the bond and we're going to and we're going to finish the project. What the town would have to do is hire >> an engineer, a professional to put
together a bid package for the remaining 25%. They would have to do the estimate, engineers estimate, all those things now working for the town and they would have to publicly bid that process through public procurement laws and solicit contractors to finish the the the work.
That's why we baked in all of the public uh Davis Bacon public uh w uh federal wages and all the and all those type of procurement things into the bond estimate. However, to Chris's point and both Chris's point, Chris Ruth mentioned it earlier and Chris just asked about
it. What typically happens in in these type of um these type of projects and it's sort of akin to a subdivision is that >> you establish a schedule of values at the beginning of the project um which we have. it's our spreadsheet and as as
things get constructed >> um and are finished we we apply or we ask the town to release a certain amount of the money right so if we let's just say arbitrarily get to 50% done like
we've poured 50% of the concrete it's in the ground it's cured like you know it it's it's done so to speak site preparation's done tree clearing's done. Uh rough grading's done, 50% of the concrete's done. We may apply to to the
to to you folks um to release, you know, a a certain portion of the bond. Um so that's another topic discussion. Um but um but to to Chris Ruth's point, um provided you don't release too much,
you should be in a position where you'd always be protected plus some. um because it's customary not to release you know you don't release all you hold some back is the retainage that happens uh typically on these things until you get to the very end um so if that
answers your question Mr. Solomon, I hope. >> Thank you. Yeah, that's what I guess that was my question, right? So, there's money sitting here in a bond and you guys obviously have raised a bunch of money in here and you have the funds to you know in your estimation to complete the project based on what your costs are,
>> right? which like if you know if we if we release 50% of the you know the bond at some point it's still you know 5 a.5 million >> or sorry sorry 500 >> 500,000 excuse me I'm adding a decimal
point there >> um >> and the idea >> which is more than the cost that you guys are putting in I think right I mean is that >> yeah it's not going to relate to our actual cost because those are not those have nothing to do with federal wages
and things. >> Some things are getting donated, you know, this kind of thing. But um but it would mean >> the money is there like the money is >> the if we obtain 200 yards of concrete by donation and we and we've already expended the labor uh for the people to
put it in the for the you know concrete flatwork guys to put it in the ground and it's done. then that's work that the town would not have to include in the in the uh uh in the in the pack in the bid package should they have to should they
have to do it and that's why you know there's a process typically that typically happens of of asking for us asking for you to reduce the bond. >> Gotcha. Um I see that Adam has his hand up. Um Adam, you want to add? >> Um I I do, Madam Chair. So I I I just
want to offer a point of clarification and I I don't disagree with what Mr. Roy just said relative to how bonding typically works in the context of subdivisions or other public projects uh usually through a permitting process before your planning board or zoning
board of appeals. It is not unusual in the subdivision context for uh bond to not even necessarily be immediately required, but rather for an instrument like a covenant to be used until such time as the developer chooses to provide a bond after maybe completing some
initial infrastructure to reduce the overall cost of what that bond would be and then to seek partial releases as the subdivision is developed over a period of what could be a year or could be 5 or 10 years. Um, I want to say that in this context, and I'm I'm looking at your
your lease agreement that we negotiated, there is no at least no express acknowledgement of partial releases of the shy. In fact, to the contrary, the shity provision says that the afor shy referring to the full shortity that's being provided shall remain in effect
for the duration of the project and for a period of 12 months following completion of the project. And that's because the shity was not just to ensure proper completion of construction but also to ensure proper operation for the first 12 months. And so there was no
contemplation of partial releases. The idea was the full shy amount would be provided and that amount would be held until 12 months following completion of construction at which point it would be released assuming no portion of it needed to be spent. >> Yeah. Can I add something?
>> Town manager is gonna Hold on. I've got a >> All right. So, just one of the things that I want to just add for the parks commission consideration. Um, if this was a town project, let's just say it's
a $1.2 million project. If we had a $1.2 million project that we put out to bid, I think we'd see a lot of folks perhaps bidding on that and wanting to construct this skate park in the town of Lunberg. I think the parks commission could should consider perhaps that if the
worst case scenario happens, we may be in the situation where we have a 60 or 75% completed project. Um, and to put that partially completed project out to bid. Um, that whatever horrible thing
happened to in the course of construction, that could have a real impact on what bids we receive back. Yeah. Okay. I I just I I tend to air on the side of caution, maybe overcaution at times. Um so I'm going to just, you
know, acknowledge again what my concern in all of this is. Um because I've even been asked at some points, is a bond necessary? 20 years ago, we built a um a turf field over at the high school. Um and that
project was started by a group of very well-intended volunteers who did a lot of leg work to raise money to build said project. The end of the day, they couldn't come up with the funds fast enough to complete the project. It went in front of town meeting and we
completed it. Um the the town supported it. the financial situation of the town when that happened is very different than the financial situation that we're faced with the town right now. We saw that with um how Marshall Park went
forward at town meeting um and the people that were against it. There were absolutely people against that project because of the price tag because it was something that it was a nice to have, not a want or a need. It was a want versus a need. I do not want to find us
in a situation where we didn't do our due diligence and now we are faced with having to complete a project that we don't have enough money to cover said cost of project and that we are either going to have to execute restoration of that area and rip
out any work even if there's a small percentage of a chance that would happen that would be that would look terrible for us but I also do not want us to have to go to town meeting request investing any funds to complete this project after we've been dealing with it as you know
looking at it as it is a private project. Um I am I don't have an issue with requesting that we move for a peer review on this if that's what the um bulk of the commission would like to see happen. I'm also okay if the bulk of the
commission wants to move forward using um the number that came through from Mr. Roy. And I I think that the um you know, we'd be looking to Mr. Costa to make sure that we've covered as much of what we could in
terms of um you know, like he said, we originally weren't releasing any monies until a certain point in time. I want to make sure we're covered on that front. Um, I'm I I'm not feeling I a slightly
stronger pull in terms of saying I think we should have somebody else review it just because I think that doing the due diligence is important. But again, that could be the overcautiousness that comes into my head anytime I'm dealing with stuff like this. um what would the rest of the
parks commission what is their desire at this point with two things on the table to make sure I'm clear on this two things on the table one move it to peer review and we would put the bill to have a peer review of this and the other moving forward
with the um the number of um the one 1,143,75 60s. Um, moving forward with that number. >> Maryann's muted. >> Maryann, are you talking again?
Let me get you. Let's see. I can't unmute you. Hold on. Town manager will try to help you. If you click that, sometimes it pops up on her screen. >> Yeah. >> Nope. >> No, we still can't hear you.
>> You're unmuted. Unmuted hers. Um, maybe her microphone. >> Did something happen with your mic? >> Can you hear me now? >> I can. >> Okay. I I hit the volume up button and I'm also the mute button. Um, so I was
saying to me it um it it um comes down to risk uh and comfort level with risk. And so, uh, I think peerre when it's 3,000 four weeks, that's a very small
price to pay for something that's been in the works for 10 years. I mean, I remember Griffin as a seventh grader and whatever they called a group something, you know, working on this. So, >> genius hour. >> Genius hour. >> That's what it was. Yeah. So, for, you
know, for the sake of that, um, you know, Yeah. Uh uh it's a small small price to pay when it looks relative to where the project started. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Colleen, >> um I think I agree with that. Um you
know, I hate to spend funds unnecessarily, but I I don't think this is unnecessary really. Um and and if we're looking at a couple thousand dollars and we have it, um and you know, I hate to delay anything. Um I
hate to delay anything further but if we could if if we are looking at four, five, six weeks um and that is not terribly detrimental, I think it's worth doing. Um >> okay, >> you know, for for our own feelings and
so that everyone in the town knows that we've we've done what we need to do to move forward. >> All right, Chris Sullivan. Yeah, I I >> Well, I feel it's a probably an
unnecessary waste of from a perception and everything else. I I think it's probably the right decision. Uh it's in no way a reflection, you know, the group and and and the estimate that we have and and and so
forth. But I just perception wise, if nothing else, it's the it's probably the prudent thing to to do. Um, and I would just, I guess, advocate with the quickest way for us to be able to do that to have the minimal
impact to to these guys to hopefully get things get things rolling. >> Okay. Um, and I I agree with all that. Um, you know, I think part of the hardest part on this whole project has been that the majority of us on this parks commission are very friendly
outside of the parks commission with the folks doing this work. Um, you know, but we do at the end of the day our our um loyalty has also has to fall back to the town and protecting their interests um financially and otherwise in in projects
like this. Um, so I would actually take a motion um to move and please anybody, if I'm wording this incorrectly, please feel free to chime in. I would actually support a motion um requesting our facilities director move forward with
obtaining a peer review of this project with a price tag. I'm actually going to go bigger just so we're covering it up to $6,000. Um, does does that motion make sense? Um, >> second.
>> Can you Can you actually move the motion and then somebody else second? >> Oh, I thought you were I thought you were making that motion. I'll I'll make that motion that Karen just did. >> Thank you. Do I have a second? >> I'll second it. I'll second it. >> Colleen, second it. Because we are um remote, I do need to be a roll call vote
on this. So, Chris Sullivan, >> I. >> Marian Mascary, >> I. >> Colleen Shapiro >> I. >> And it's an I for myself. All right. But I don't want anybody to go anywhere because the the bigger part of this conversation is what's about to happen.
So um let's just we need to just looking at a number. We need to use a number for this part of this next conversation. So let's say that our peer review comes back and it comes back matching what the um the numbers are that u Mr. Roy Group
had put together the 1.14 million the way our original contract which is also a document that I had uploaded yesterday or had been uploaded I reshared yesterday um was written was that a bond amount which hadn't been for
some reason um determined in that um document I think it might have said something like at town manager's discretion to be determined by town manager >> um >> is that we that that bond
because of the way this this is my understanding of it from the skatepark. So skate park feel free if you need to correct me you can. um because they are a private project, bonding this entire amount, the traditional way was um they
felt was not doable because um the project value on their end was considerably lower than the price tag that the town was looking at. And and in this case, we'll use that 1.14 million. Um, so they've come up with another
idea, um, that I'm hoping they can present to us today while we have Mr. Costa here, um, and town manager to be able to sort of weed through some of that. Um, because I do expect this that this project will continue to move forward. And this is just unfortunately
another sort of bump in the road that we'll navigate with the skate park. Um, so I'd like to hear from the skate park folks what they're thinking in terms of this new bonding idea that they have so we can get this discussion rolling. >> I'll take it unless anybody else said
um so I'll just come right out and give you the give you the executive summary. We're we're intending to escrow the a cash escrow establish a cash escrow account uh to cover the amount of whatever we decide.
And that's that's pretty typical. Um there's sort of three and again attorney Costa can correct me if I'm wrong, but there's kind of three different ways you can secure these kind of things. One is a bond, which is essentially just an insurance policy where you pay some money and an
insurance company steps in and and ensures the project for the for the full amount. Um, as Karen said correctly, we have tried for six months to get um uh to talking to uh different security uh uh insurance
providers and nobody will will bond us uh for that amount of money on this project just relative to the just the way we don't have a contract in place for that amount of money and they just won't do it. Um we've tried to ask um others if they could step in and do it.
it's just it's just not a possibility. >> The second way that these are commonly done is through something called a triparty agreement where you effectively have a um a mortgage agreement, if you will, with a bank where the where the town is is a third party to that
agreement and has the ability to to exercise funds in that manner. Um and the third way, and this again this is these three things are sort of directly out of your subdivision regulations. So, if you had a the correlary here, I know it's not a a perfect apples to apples
comparison, but um but it is a private project like a subdivision. The third way is just to put up the amount of money in cash as in someone's going to write a check u to fund uh an escro
account to cover it. And that is the way uh we are proposing to do it. Um we do have Steve here. Um, I want to be I'm going to speak on his behalf. We talked to Steve about this over the past couple
months, but most recently yesterday. Um, uh, we owe Steve a lot, uh, from the skate park, uh, for his willingness to step up and do this. But I wanted to say to this group that, um, it's, um, Steve would like to remain a silent partner as
as much as possible on this. So, please um if if you wouldn't mind respecting that as much as we can, we'd appreciate it. >> Yep. Absolutely. On that front, um Mr. Costa, can you tell us um with what Mr. Roy
just said, um and if you guys are going to call me Madam Chair, I will be now referring to you as your last names. um what um he just said, how that would um I I don't I don't want to say pros and cons, but tell us what you think we need to know um in terms of our side of
things with this. >> Um, sure. So, I I I want to I want to sort of preface my remarks by maybe stating the obvious, which is that we're having this discussion in an open public meeting with the party we're contracting with or against in attendance at the
meeting. And so I'm always cautious about giving legal advice in an open public meeting because any sort of attorney client privilege that might provide is waved by virtue of me making the statements openly and publicly. So, um I I'll I'll give you my general thoughts, but in terms of whether that
amounts to, um amendment of the contract or the reissuance of a contract with amended terms, I think that's probably better a discussion that is had um either with the commission in executive session if it so qualifies or with a representative like the chair of the
commission privately. Um having said that, with respect to to Mr. Royy's comments. Um, I agree with what he said relative to the types of shities that are available for circumstances like these. Um, bonds are are used with some frequency, but with a bond, usually the
way that works is you pay the bonding company a percentage of the face value of the bond, and those monies are lost forever. You're paying for the benefit of the issuance of the bond. And and depending upon who you ask, that percentage can be anywhere from 3% of
face value up to 10% of face value. Um, and that depends in part upon who you're using to bond the project. And of course, you've got to find an entity that's willing to bond it. That entity needs to ensure that it will have some recourse of its own in the event that uh
you don't pay uh it has to pay on your behalf. Um, and that may be difficult if you're a nonprofit organization, say established for the sole purpose of developing a project like this. And so I don't dispute what Mr. Roy says about the alternative types of shy. You could
use a tripartite agreement or a letter of credit. Those are potential options. I don't know if those have been if the letter of credit has been explored. Um, but the the third or fourth option, of course, is the cash account, which is what we typically refer to it as, which is exactly what it sounds like. the the
entity uh puts up the cash and it gets held in escrow in an account uh established for that purpose and it gets held for the period of time uh dictated by the terms and conditions of the permit or in this case the lease agreement and then gets released uh if it's an interest bearing account it gets
released with with interest if it's not then there's no interest but it gets released at the conclusion of the bonding term or the shy term to the the party that provided the the funds um so I don't have any issue with the use of any of those uh types of shies. And in
fact, in some context, we've already referred to planning boards and subdivisions, which is where this arises with great frequency. The the subdivision control law actually gives that option uh to the developer. It's the applicant that gets to determine which type of shity it's going to use,
not the board. The board can't demand a cash account or um or a bond. It's the applicant that gets to make that choice. And so, I don't have any issue. They're they're they're all viable choices that provide protection to the town. Um what Mr. Roy didn't say, but I'm sort of
reading between the lines here. And of course, there have been some offline discussions I've had with the town manager, but what I understood to be the case was that the the skate park or the the nonprofit organization that's developing it was contemplating a circumstance where either in lie of the
the cash account or in exchange for some reduction of the cash account um uh Steve and Steve's company would step up to provide some some asurances to the to the town. Am I am I understanding that correctly through you, Madam Chair, to to Mr. Roy?
>> Um, well, I think uh I I'm not sure. >> And that's Greg, I want you to I I I this was this has been a concern of mine from the start of this meeting. Um because I do agree with, you know,
there's um not everything has to be thrown out in the public for all the folks involved. Um, so I want to be aware of that. So we can continue to h we can continue that piece of it. That piece can happen between myself and town manager um and you guys outside of a
public meeting. Um, that's perfectly fine. >> I maybe that's I guess what what I mean is not sure. I I that that's kind of the first time I'm hearing that out of out of anybody's mouth. I I wasn't, you know, we I think we would like to have a
discussion about um um well, the f the first thing to say is in the in the spirit of of um understanding that the town's been burned in the past with these kind of projects on the example that that Karen
has said, um I'm I'm giving respect to that and I won't I'm not trying to deriggate from that risk, but um we have a guy here that um is putting up sign is willing to is willing to put up
significant money and I hope that that speaks something uh uh to to to the folks here on the call, the parks commission and the and the town folks that um there is a third party that's willing to um uh put some faith in the
organiz in the group here that's before you. So, I wanted to say that >> volumes. I I I can't I I just, you know, >> Yeah. No, that's just a statement. You don't have to. >> Yeah. No, no. I mean, I I I will acknowledge that because it's um um I shouldn't say I'm surprised because I think that, you know, this individual
does so much for this town. I actually start to think we should name our town after him. Um but that's another story. Um so, no, it totally totally um respect all of that. Um, so >> what we would like to have a discussion on and understanding we have to come up
with the full schedule of value first. You've just decided you want to peer review it. So, you know, it's it's a little maybe a little bit premature, but I think we would like to the extent we're going to be renegotiating this uh right of entry agreement. I think the the right of entry agreement anticipated a 50-50 split with a with a restoration
bond versus a performance bond, you know, a completion bond. I understand that times have changed, sentiments have changed relative to that. I think we would like to talk through that. Um, if we do not have to tie up $1.1 million of somebody's cash, um, you know, we'd like
to not have to do that. We'd also like to not have to do it for a 12 month period. Um, so I think there's some things in that in that um, to the extent that we're renegotiating um, the right of entry agreement, I'd like to to at least put those on the
table for consideration. I'm not trying to say that there's going to be any foregone conclusions here, but we'd like to um we we'd like to talk through those things. >> Okay. So, the way it had been um in our last agreement with you folks was that
um until at 50% up to 50% it was a restoration bonds which would mean that you know we bring that property as close to original condition as we could. Once you hit >> 50.01% 01% it pushes it into the um
completion bond. Um the Is anybody on the parks commission looking to have that portion of it changed? I'm personally not. I'm personally comfortable with it. I I feel so because the 50% isn't a monetary you're not
getting to 50% of the money spent. You're getting to 50% of the work actually being done. Correct. >> Uh right. So, effectively, the way I'd see it is we'd figure out what we need in for a restoration bond to cover to
cover you. We'd put that money in escrow. Let's just say it's $100,000. I'm making it up. >> We would proceed with the project and when we got to before we proceeded past 50% of our schedule of values here on the on the spreadsheet, we would have to put up the rest of the money.
>> Yep. So, >> that was my understanding. But perhaps there'd be some discussion on, you know, >> um, >> if we I think there's some discussion on what's the rest of the money because if we've already p if we've
already done 50% of the project, then the town really wouldn't have to do it. Maybe the rest of the money isn't the full 1.1. Maybe maybe it's not 50% either, but maybe it's 75%. You know what I'm saying? Maybe there's something we can do where we, you know, to make sure the town's protected, but also to
maybe, you know, give a nod to um someone that's putting up a significant amount of cash, tying up a significant amount of cash. Let's just let's just make sure we're not >> 2x protected when maybe we only need to be 1.5 protected or something like that. >> Yeah. So, I'm going to I'm ask one
question of Mr. Costa and then I'm actually going to recommend that we um probably just adjourn this meeting and and let's move some of this into more of a private conversation um so that we can actually hash out some of the details a little bit better. Um because it's not
my intention to I it it it's just where it's where my comfort level is at this point. Um but in listening to what you had just said, my concern here is that if um what happens between the zero and the 50% if we don't have the full assurance
already on board in an account somewhere if you know whoever was going to you know be the backer of said said funds changed their minds and now you're at 50%. And we suddenly don't have
>> the anything in that account. Um, I mean, I would assume that's the way it would work, Adam. That if, you know, if if somebody changed their mind before that 50% mark hit, that we could be screwing ourselves, for lack of better
words, um, and have no money left, no money in that account and the skate park's right back to square one and trying to figure out how to figure this out. I am I misunderstanding something there? I I don't know that you are necessarily, but let me maybe provide a bit of
additional context. And I'm I'm also I'm also mindful of the things that maybe we don't want to discuss maybe in an open session. Um I asked the question I asked before because I'm hearing this referencing these references to to somebody or some organization or some company backing the project and
investing a significant sum. But I don't know what that means in terms of legal ease in terms of what how is that going to be ultimately reflected in an agreement and how does it play into this analysis concerning what form of shity and what amount of shity is necessary to provide protection to the town. It's
great to say that somebody has invested a significant amount and that you have great trust for that person or that company because of their long-standing ties to the community. I don't dispute any of that, but my job as your lawyer is not to rely upon long-standing ties to the community. is to ensure that
you're protected legally based on the black and white terms of of a lease agreement in this case. So, um to go to your specific question without addressing that issue, this this provision, this paragraph 12B of the lease agreement that talks about the 50% standard is something that was the
subject of a fair amount of discussion and negotiation when this document was was originally prepared and signed. And initially, this language, if I remember correctly, I'd have to look through the many versions of it that I've got. Initially, this language was much more um I would say vanilla. It was sort of
the standard language that required a performance bond or or equivalent shity be provided at the outset of the project prior to uh the issuance of any sort of a building permit for the project. Um and certainly prior to commencement of construction to ensure that in the event
that the project was not completed that the town had access to the necessary funds to complete the project itself. Uh we received feedback at that point in time from council for the skate park that that was a uh significant financial
burden and obligation early on in the project requiring it to post a bond or provide a cash assurity um and so significant amount to ensure completion of the project immediately before the project gets underway even before site preparation occurs. And so we agreed
through negotiation upon this 50% standard. And the idea was that up until the 50% point that it would be better if the project was at 10% or 33% or 48%, it would be better up until the 50% point
in in construction to simply restore the site to its original condition and determine whatever that cost would be. And that might mean something as simple as filling in a hole in the ground if the project was 5% in, or it might mean something more significant like removing some vertical construction that had
occurred, but maybe minimal vertical construction prior to that 50% stage. But the the the objective there with the uh 50% restoration bond is what I'll call it. I think that's also the term that Mr. Roy used. Um the restoration bond would allow you to restore the site
to its condition immediately prior to anything getting underway on site. And so you'd be no worse off. Certainly the skate park organization would be worse off because they've expended time and effort and a certain amount of money in getting the project underway up to a 10% 30% 49% uh completion stage. Um but the
town would would be in a position where it could restore the site. There would not be any sort of an attractive nuisance. There wouldn't be a hole in the ground or anything of that sort um up until the 50% stage. But you're correct that up until that 50% stage, there would be no money available to the
town to say if the project is 49% complete that gosh, it's awfully close to 50%. There is some vertical construction underway. We'd really like to just complete the construction of the of the skate park. Um that you wouldn't have the funds to do that. You would
have to restore the site. Once you hit 50% that's when the the uh the developer the skate park organization would need to provide the additional performance bond monies or or cash account um so that you would have those funds available to you
>> I'm sorry I have to go I have 11 o'clock so >> okay thank you Greg >> thanks Greg I appreciate it >> all right so my suggestion and I think I have the support of um town manager sitting next to me nodding her head before I even say it is let's adjourn
this meeting um and then I can make a plan with her um who will then you know either myself or her will be in touch with um with Adam to sort of we'll flush as much of this offline as we can um and
bring a much more organized package or something back to the commission um for discussion as a whole in a public setting That said, I do think that this meeting today was extremely worth it. I think it got um it gave um our commission a better
understanding of the bigger picture of what's going on. It allowed us to hear our town council. um it's not ending in the way that I think that the skate park would like to see it and that I think they're just ready to they're ready to move on to the next phase and I you know I do acknowledge that um and I apologize
for the you know the new bump that have thrown in um in your path um but I think we can get this figured out um I think we've hit some good um momentum at this point um so why don't we if unless anybody disagrees with that on the park side that would be my suggestion at this
point >> can I ask one quick question I know then biting my tongue this whole call and honestly I appreciate all of you immensely and the time the effort and the attention you're paying this um >> do we have any assurances that let's say four six weeks from now we get together
again >> and there's not going to be a new bump we've been at this it's Karen I think it's almost a year trying to get this done >> this is the 11th hour we thought we were coming together to say yes we all agree let's sign this >> so here's what I'm gonna say to you
Anthony is that the um if you would asked me yesterday if I expected this bump in the road, my answer would have been no. Um I think that when you when you have a group of people that are well-intentioned like the parks commission is, we don't know
everything. We don't have all the ins and outs of things. I think that um we're sort of we we are learning as we go in some of this. I think that some of this is to be the expect the unexpected mantra. it probably needs to carry forward. I can't guarantee that there's not going to be
another bump in the road, but I'll bust my butt to try to make sure that every bump is as smooth as possible and we can get to the next level. Um, you know, I'm going to be remiss to to not mention to you guys too that if we've already had a signed contract, if that contract had
been executed, we wouldn't be sitting here right now. We would have been left with whatever, you know, we had agreed to back when we signed that original agreement. So, >> I fully understand. And actually, that wasn't a question for you, Karen. That was a question really for Adam and and and uh and Jen.
>> They're not they're going to have the same answer for you is that they can't guarantee there's not going to be another bump in the road. They they can't guarantee it. Nobody can guarantee. >> Well, I'm not looking for a guarantee, per se, but I'm saying, are you guys anticipating any other steps, hurdles between here and being able to to sign
this agreement? again. >> I I I I don't think anybody has an answer to that that would be as straightforward as you wanted it to be because I think there could be stuff that pops up um as we go as we go through this. But
>> I will say thank you in advance. >> If you don't mind me, >> could I make a comment? >> Sure. >> I'd just like to say like I that you know my involvement was watching these kids hustle around this money. you know, it's definitely an inspiration.
Um, and I understand the town's fear because of past projects. I was very involved in the turf project. Um, but if you do look at it and my father used to say this when we had a restaurant, you know, somebody could have a hundred good meals, but they come in, they have one bad meal, that's the one they talk
about. So, if you look around town, there's a ton of projects that have been done. Kids Kingdom, uh the outdoor classroom, all these things that have been donated and you know, baseball fields, and I'm not just saying me, by multiple people that have gone off without a hitch that have been a great asset to the town. Now, when you look at
the turf field back then, the parks owned the land, the school didn't. There was this line, you know, it was like you couldn't cross it. >> It was it was the it was actually reversed. The school owned the land. >> Okay. And then when the um when the when the turf folks came to the track I think
they were called the track Lunberg track and field association or something when they came to town meeting because town funds were now being put into it. >> It went in under the care and control of the parks commission which we learned the hard way that you have another entity having care and control of
somebody else's property is really difficult. So you are you are correct that there were two entities involved but it was flipped. We didn't own the land. I just want to make sure people know. >> So just when well but when we got involved we came in and just you know kind of helped out try to you know get the thing done because it was the same
situation. And I agree you you have to protect the town. But if if you take a step back and look when that turf was replaced it was replaced wrong. They put a concussion pad under it. The drainage doesn't work cuz the whole field's supposed to be a drain. I was not involved in the replacement of the turf
unfortunately. But now, if we step back 20 years later, you do still have something that in today's world would cost you probably six, seven, eight million dollars to build, which the town does get to use. I understand that, you know, the the bleachers are bad.
Everything was done very cheap and and with what they had at the time, >> you know, unfortunately, that's what we have now. But if you do step back and look at it, it is, you know, the infrastructure is there to have, you know, it could be at some point brought up to a standard.
>> So with that being said, I just want to mention like I think these the these kids are an inspiration to all of us. My involvement is seeing these kids grind through, grind through and keep coming through these hurdles. So you know, we have the ability to do it. I want to help out. I'd love to see the project. I've never skateboarded. none of my kids
skateboard, but I see the passion these kids have and I I'm just, you know, >> we're all getting our skateboards, Steve. We will be amazed. >> We will have an adult skateboarding night when when this thing is off the ground. So, I appreciate that. >> Waivers will be signed. >> Yes, waivers. Town managers.
>> I guess I'll be standing there with a clipboard and a piece of paper. But, um, all right. So, this is, you know, again, I think this is this isn't a this isn't not a huge, you know, we haven't gone off the road. We're not in a ditch somewhere unable to get out. This is just going to be I think a small bump in
the road. Um let us I will um touch base with Chris Ruth shortly after this meeting um to figure out if there's anything I need to do on the peer review side. Um I apologize Chris for adding something else to your plate um to try to get done, but we will um get this moving as fast as we can and hopefully
we get um the information that we need in a timely manner um and we will go from there. But in the meantime, um we will I will speak with town manager and um our legal council. Um I will be in touch with Anthony and we will make a plan on how we can meet offline and and
figure this out um and invite you know the uh any members of the public who need to be in attendance. We will make sure that they are they are with us um and do our due diligence by that as well. So um if I could get a motion to adjourn this meeting at 11:09.
>> So moved. And because we are do >> Marian, you're always on you're always on mute. There you go again. Because we are remote. >> Marian can add the credit. Go ahead. >> I do need to do a a quick roll call vote on that. Chris Sullivan.
>> Hi. >> Uh Colleen Shapiro >> I. >> And Marian Mascari >> I. >> And it's an I for myself. So we are adjourned at 11:09 um a.m. Everybody have a good rest of your day. Thank you for taking the time um morning. Thank you. Thank you everyone very much.
>> Thank you. >> Bye everyone. >> Bye.