2026-09-09 - Municipal Facilities Optimization Committee

00:01[clears throat] Good evening. This is

00:02the September 9th, 2026 meeting of the

00:05Municipal Facilities Optimization

00:06Committee. We do have a quorum. So, I

00:08call this meeting to order.

00:11Uh, first on the agenda, which we are

00:12going to put off because they're not

00:14ready, is to review and approve the

00:15meeting minutes. Those are not prepared

00:17right now. So, we'll put those to the

00:18next meeting. Item number three is to

00:21review and approve bills. We have one

00:23bill from Vertex Companies for $2,623.

00:29Any questions or comments on this bill?

00:34We have a motion to approve.

00:37>> I second.

00:38>> We have a motion and a second to approve

00:40the bill from Vertex Companies in the

00:43amount of $2,623.

00:45All those in favor signify by saying I.

00:48>> I. Opposed. So voted. Three to zero.

00:52>> Thank you.

00:54>> Appreciate that.

00:54>> Our pleasure.

00:55>> You get the chair.

00:57Item number four, discuss the potential

00:59reuse of the existing water and sewer

01:01garage at 207 South Street. So, we have

01:04Paul from HKT Architects. I think we'll

01:06be presenting. Welcome, Paul.

01:08>> No, not yet. I'm sorry.

01:10>> Ryan Ryan and I are going to run through

01:12>> That's fine.

01:13>> Where where we were based after the last

01:16meeting because some of the questions

01:17that came up about the water department.

01:19So,

01:19>> take it away, John.

01:20>> Yeah, sure. So we went back and just to

01:23reook at you know if you look back the

01:26information is two years old right some

01:27of the the original work that HKA that's

01:31not confusing that HKA did on the

01:34project and you know when going back

01:37through the information you know when we

01:39separated um you know we had gotten some

01:42draft information there had been

01:44PowerPoint presentations but when you

01:46dig back through it and you look at

01:47their memos there's a couple of couple

01:49of things that are striking So the

01:52uh most important so the water

01:56department building when it was

01:58reviewed, you know, the report talked

02:00about a roof that was in pretty rough

02:03shape and structurally not just not just

02:06roofing. Also talked about the um one of

02:10the corners of the building being

02:12structurally deficient and needing to be

02:14needing to be rebuilt. But all of that

02:17needs to also be taken in tandem with um

02:20you know the programmatic needs. But

02:22let's stay on let's keep stay away from

02:24program for a second. when looking at

02:26the building, you know, I think it's

02:28important and I think and Ryan will talk

02:30about costs in a second is that that

02:33building is in such shape that once you

02:37start to develop it and start to do any

02:40repairs to it, you very quickly are

02:42going to exceed the assessed value of

02:45the building. And you don't call what

02:48that value is, but once you hit 30%.

02:52You then have to bring the building up

02:53to code all current codes, right? So

02:56your 1950s something building then needs

02:58to be made accessible life safety. This

03:02is the tricky the structural code,

03:03right? And bring that building up to,

03:05you know, whatever steel needs to be in

03:07the ceiling and the walls and all that

03:08stuff. So what trends from there is a

03:12repair that costs

03:16almost almost as much at per square

03:18foot. And again, I'll defer to Ryan on

03:20that. Just to repair a building that

03:24then

03:25doesn't meet the programmatic needs of

03:28the growing department that you have,

03:30you know, fast forward 70 years from

03:31when it was originally put together. So

03:34you really need to look at those two

03:36things together. In the end, you know,

03:38you've got

03:40needs, the needs drive the program, the

03:42program drives the square footage,

03:43right? So, at the end of the day, you

03:46know, the bays and those sorts of things

03:48don't work anymore. So, that's how this

03:51all kind of came into, you know, when

03:54HKA looked at it and they just said,

03:57"No, this it's not there's nothing

03:59useful there because the cost to bring

04:01it forward would be as expensive." Uh,

04:05you know, I'll go to Ryan for a minute

04:07just to talk about the breakdown of cost

04:08and I know there's a handout on the

04:10table. Um,

04:11>> did you get that or not?

04:13>> What is it?

04:13>> Did you get this?

04:14>> Yeah, there is one.

04:16>> You got one? Yeah. Okay.

04:17>> Okay. Good.

04:18>> Yeah. So, uh, the breakdown I've

04:20provided on the table is is essentially

04:22summarizing um all of the numerical

04:25values that Keith included in the um

04:30in the summary that he provided. So just

04:32a quick highlevel review the budget that

04:36we brought to town meeting and then the

04:38subsequent town vote in total was you

04:41know approximately $35.5 million for

04:44both the town hall and the DPW

04:46renovation of that. Um one of the uh

04:50value engineer items we had was a four

04:52mill a $4 million deduct to remove the

04:55town hall renovation portion of that.

04:57So, uh, when you consider the scope that

04:59was included for the DPW South Street

05:03site, um, DPW and water sewer, we had a

05:06gross square footage of 65,020 ft at a,

05:11uh, dollar uh, per square foot cost of

05:14$473

05:16for a total cost of, uh, $30.7 million.

05:21Um, you know, following up on the

05:23discussions from the previous committee

05:25meeting, um, my team looked at what, you

05:28know, a rough order of magnitude cost

05:30would be to bring the existing water

05:33sewer garage up to code um, and, you

05:38know, just get the basic function of

05:40that building to meet the standards that

05:42we would expect um, for today. So, we

05:45provided a breakdown of that overall

05:47cost. Again, that was just based on, you

05:49know, our understanding of the existing

05:51building, based on the pictures that

05:54were taken early on, some of the um

05:57narratives that were provided and then

05:59just our, you know, our market research

06:02on, you know, H uh HVAC, fire, electric,

06:06um as well as just, you know, taking

06:08some um assumptions on that

06:10>> and that was the breakdown that was in

06:12your packet. So, correct the documents.

06:14So at that cost, we got a uh the for the

06:19existing 20,000 foot building, we had a

06:22dollar per square foot cost for the

06:24renovation of that building of $434,

06:27which is $40 a square foot less than

06:31what the 60% um design that was uh

06:35shown. But to kind of give a, you know,

06:38a global picture of what the renovation

06:40of that building looked like, we wanted

06:42to kind of, you know, lay out a plan of

06:45what we would have to do to the rest of

06:48that site to get the usage that we need

06:52or that the town needs out of that. So,

06:54of the 65,000 square ft that was part of

06:58the 60% design, 35,000 of it was the DPW

07:03renovation. That's without the addition

07:06for the uh offices or the um water sewer

07:10off the north side of the building. So

07:12using the $473

07:15of the 60% design that would be $16

07:18million

07:20plus with the two existing buildings, we

07:23had a shortfall of 9,000 square ft of

07:26programming from the previous design

07:28that we had a gap there. So that's kind

07:30of what had been previously discussed.

07:32Do we renovate the two buildings and

07:34then add a small third building? And

07:37that could be for the town staff that

07:40are currently on the second floor of the

07:41town hall or some more equipment storage

07:44for equipment that's oversized that

07:46can't fit in the existing water sewer

07:48garage. Um, so we used that 9,000 square

07:52ft. Assumed because we weren't

07:54optimizing the uh the building into one

07:57new building that you would have, you

07:59know, some ex inefficiency factor. we we

08:02ended up carrying 20% as you know a

08:05reasonable assumption for that point. um

08:08it at the same, you know, new

08:11construction cost that we carried uh in

08:13the 2025 budget. And we came up with a

08:16total cost for renovating the two

08:18buildings on the South Street site, plus

08:22net adding the square footage we need to

08:24to get to the same square footage as was

08:26previously proposed. and we end up

08:29within a $100,000 of cost between what

08:32we had shown in 2025 and what a full

08:36renovation of the existing buildings

08:38would look like. Um, so again, I think,

08:42you know, uh, we've kind of already

08:45brushed on like the the the optimization

08:48and the lack that of that that there

08:50would be with just the full renovation.

08:53Um, I think probably, you know, Keith or

08:56John would be able to speak to that more

08:58elegantly just from a perspective.

08:59>> And just just to be clear, too, the the

09:022025 design, those numbers, that was a

09:07that was not a pre-fabricated metal

09:10building.

09:11>> That was a full

09:12>> fullon structural virtual steel block or

09:15brick. Okay. So, it's important to note

09:18that, you know, the changes that we're

09:21looking at are meant to make a more

09:26cost-effective building, but essentially

09:28we're trying to also mitigate, we're

09:31trying to keep the project in the same

09:32ballpark.

09:33>> Yep.

09:34>> While we've still had three years of

09:36escalation, right? So that that's the

09:38good work of HKT, you know, coming up

09:41with a, you know, what's up on the

09:43screen to be more prefab, more um just

09:47more cost effective because if you were

09:49trying to price the 20 original 2025

09:53design right now, it wouldn't be 30

09:54million anymore. It would be, you know,

09:57something plus plus probably

10:01555% a year, right? for right now.

10:03Again, tariffs and all that stuff, we're

10:07not talking about those right now. We're

10:08just talking about what we've seen

10:10happen with with costs. It's been it's

10:13quieted after the jumps of 22 and 23,

10:15which again we had in the 25 number.

10:18It's thankfully has at least it's at

10:21least leveled, you know. Um but again,

10:24we you know, the process moving forward

10:27would be to continue to, you know, make

10:30the design as efficient as possible. um

10:33you know trying to price in some

10:37contingency to protect us a little bit

10:41>> but not you know again all the tariffs

10:43so far have

10:45they haven't really been successful

10:47right so we've heard but this is the

10:49closest we've had I've actually started

10:51to see actual customs paperwork which is

10:55the closest I've ever seen with any of

10:57this discussion but still no real proof

10:59of payment from folks I don't know what

11:02what you guys are seeing, but we're as

11:04close as we're as close to actually

11:06getting hit with those as we as we ever

11:09have. But then the question is is if

11:10they go to court and get shot down,

11:13>> then what happens?

11:13>> Then what happens, right? So my fear for

11:15any client is pay it. How do we get it

11:18back? You know, once it's paid and it

11:20goes into that black hole of subs and

11:22suppliers, you know, is it ever getting,

11:25you know, and suddenly it gets found to

11:27be,

11:29you know, doesn't stand up in court. How

11:30do I get Shrewsburg their money back?

11:32So, all of these numbers are devoid of

11:35any discussion on that, but it's

11:36certainly something that this group will

11:38be thinking about over the coming months

11:41as it plays out.

11:42>> We need tariff insurance of some sort.

11:44>> Yeah. Oh, great. Just what we just what

11:46we need another insurance product,

11:48right?

11:49>> So, John and or Ryan on this 8.77

11:52million total construction cost, I'm

11:54assuming that these costs are based on

11:56everything going almost perfectly.

12:00Yeah, I mean again this is a rough order

12:02of magnitude just based on what our

12:04current knowledge is, you know, without

12:06a heavy input from the design team. Um,

12:10so we just wanted to give the group a

12:12sense of, you know, what our initial

12:14thought would be.

12:17>> And you would also I mean there's

12:19>> there's some there's some contingencies

12:21in here which I like because you

12:24>> you haven't cracked a wall open, right?

12:26you haven't found a sin hiding in the

12:28building

12:29>> the contingencies

12:30>> hiding under the building

12:31>> they align with what we had shown in the

12:3360% too so similar to any CM project as

12:37you go along you know you go from your

12:3960% to your 90% okay we have more

12:42certainty of you know what the design is

12:44what we're doing we would then you know

12:46based on the budget constraints modify

12:48those

12:48>> and that's really important so when you

12:49look at this breakdown that Ryan did

12:51that 777

12:53it's not a it's not an outside of the

12:57number contingency. It's that the plan

12:59wasn't developed yet. And as the plan

13:01gets developed,

13:02>> more of these categories up above get

13:05more money in them and this design

13:07contingency reduces down to zero. I you

13:10know, so just want to be be clear on

13:12that. This isn't fat by a million

13:14dollars. This is

13:15>> there's design that was never done. This

13:17is a here's what I've read. Here's what

13:19they read in the narrative. Here's what

13:20they you know by walking and seeing it

13:23trying to put you know put a number to

13:24it. So

13:26>> thank you.

13:28>> So I have a question like on the this

13:301100 square foot is it pre-fabricated?

13:35>> No. Is it prefabricated? Is that what

13:38the question is?

13:38>> Like last time you guys came with the

13:39proposal of

13:41>> No, it's regular.

13:42>> Yeah, it's all custom steel and

13:45masonary. It's not nothing like this

13:48current plan which is what we went right

13:51pre. The goal is to try to get when this

13:56design is finalized to still be in the

14:00same ballpark of that 30 million

14:02although we've encountered three years

14:04of escalation. So we're trading off some

14:10building types for other building types

14:12which are very, you know, tried and true

14:14for this type of this type of building.

14:16But just the the light gauge metal

14:18framing and whatnot that's used for that

14:20to clear some of those spans is much

14:23more effect cost effective than full-on

14:25structural steel for you know which is

14:28what you know which is what these

14:30numbers these numbers had.

14:33And you're saying something 9,000 I

14:35didn't get that 9,000. What is the

14:37difference that?

14:38>> So if you look if you look at the full

14:40renovation section the the 20,200 of the

14:45water sewer and the DPW renovation at

14:4835,000 the sum of that.

14:51>> So this right?

14:53>> Yeah. So the these are the existing

14:55>> it's this one here.

14:56>> Okay.

14:57>> Yeah. These are the existing square

14:58footages of the buildings if you were to

15:00renovate them. This was the programming

15:02of the all the new project. So if you

15:05just fixed what you had and just fixed

15:07what you had, you'd still be short by,

15:11>> you know, 9,000 square ft. So we put a

15:14little bit of a contingency on it. So

15:15that's what you'd still have to build in

15:18order to fit the program into two just

15:21repaired buildings. You would need

15:23another 10,000 11,000 foot something out

15:26there. And again, and the inefficiency

15:28he's talking about is that hadn't really

15:30been designed, right? So, where do you

15:32put it? How does it affect the other

15:34buildings? And that was that was one of

15:36the problems with the other plan was

15:38that trying to attach to that

15:41>> that old building.

15:43[clears throat] It's it was creating

15:45more cost and impact to the job whether

15:48by time or phasing than just

15:51>> scrape the earth and wiping

15:53>> you know and that's also not that's it's

15:56big numbers right but if you're adding

15:59>> you know another building then you also

16:01have to add facilities for staff in

16:03those buildings whether it's restrooms

16:05locker rooms showers like that sort of

16:07thing so like said that's not a huge

16:09number but like that's another savings

16:11of having reducing the the buildings

16:14because

16:15>> shared facilities,

16:15>> you know, share shared facilities for

16:17all um makes a big difference.

16:19>> It's also redundancy, too. I mean, if we

16:21can do it in one building,

16:24>> you're avoiding the redundancies of

16:25having two or three buildings.

16:28>> Yeah.

16:28>> Yeah. Then you're just beating fixture

16:30counts by code as opposed to

16:33>> multiple multiple locations.

16:47What if we going to use the fabricated

16:50here? What will be the cost? Do you know

16:52that any?

16:54>> I think we're if if that's the we're get

16:58we're getting to that. I would say

16:59another we we're looking at octo the end

17:03of October for doing an full-on

17:05estimate. Yeah.

17:06>> And having that first number. um you

17:09know we so specifically I'm hoping it's

17:12right around the same right around the

17:15same right for for the entire entire

17:17facility but again the they'll have to

17:20you know go go to the marketplace and

17:23see you know see what it looks like see

17:25what the impact if there's been any

17:26impact of tariffs that sort of stuff we

17:29probably want to try to call that out if

17:31we could so that we can identify it we

17:33don't want to show a

17:35>> a number that's over inflated Yeah,

17:38>> you know, we don't we don't want to talk

17:39those numbers out until we actually know

17:41exactly what they are cuz that was a

17:42mistake.

17:43>> So, John, just for um

17:45>> clarification, the work between now and

17:47October, would that get us from 60% to

17:50what number? Design phase?

17:52>> So, it's actually

17:54>> it's more like conceptual or schematic

17:56design.

17:59>> It's more like what you're used to

18:01seeing when you do an MSBA school in the

18:03town, right? It's it's coming up you

18:06know you've got your conceptual working

18:08towards schematic you know scope and

18:11budget you know what you're what the

18:13scope is you know the program

18:15>> and putting a number on it then and

18:17projecting that number out

18:19>> okay

18:19>> to the midpoint of construction. So

18:21>> then we go from okay

18:22>> then we go from there. So it'll be a

18:23little more just like you would do at a

18:25school. you know, you're you're couching

18:27it a little bit more with escalation and

18:29contingency

18:30>> because it is, you know, they haven't

18:32had the time

18:33>> to, you know, from since we said go

18:35again, you know, to develop.

18:36>> I just needed to jog my memory from 3

18:38years ago as to where we were getting

18:40to.

18:41>> Yeah. And we'll utilize that budget

18:44number to go to the community. Yes. for

18:46the ask and then at that point if if the

18:49we get a favorable vote then HKT will

18:52move forward to get and this group has

18:54to live with it like we would like you

18:56would

18:56>> with the when you eventually do it with

18:58the high school

18:59>> whatever that number is

19:00>> that's the number

19:01>> that's the number can't go up

19:03>> and the advantage is this time that

19:05it'll be both Fontaine and HKT's third

19:09party estimator that will be looking at

19:10it go through a reconciliation so it's

19:14it appear I believe that didn't occur

19:16the first time around. So we will have

19:18>> so we'll have two estimates

19:19>> two estimates those will get reconciled

19:21so you know there will be a higher level

19:24of looking forward to that

19:26>> conference.

19:27>> Oh you we'll save you from that pain.

19:29We'll just bring you the results.

19:32>> It's like it's like a usually usually

19:34like a 4-hour meeting. So

19:36>> it's like a unless you want.

19:38>> It's like a family holiday.

19:39>> Unless you want to.

19:41>> Good.

19:42>> All right. So no I'm in I'm in a good

19:43place. So because [clears throat] still

19:4630 like million is the still a big

19:48number.

19:49>> Yeah.

19:50>> Um

19:51we are looking for something like 25

19:53million or something and can you suggest

19:57like where we can like this is quite

20:002,000 is going to reduce it like if you

20:02want to meet like same 65,000

20:05you can have 9,000. [snorts]

20:07See that that becomes a so if you don't

20:10agree with the program the DPW has

20:12that's a program discussion right so you

20:15need that's a discussion between you

20:17know Keith to say what am I cutting out

20:19of the program he the whole I think the

20:23whole charge in the beginning was to say

20:24okay what do we have for space and what

20:26do we what do we need for space you know

20:31that number of 65,000 has been the

20:34program for 2 years right so the issue

20:36is is if you want to reduce that by 10

20:38to 15%. Whose office isn't going to be

20:41there? Which trucks aren't going to be

20:43inside? That's the type of discussion

20:45that's moving towards right and and the

20:48just just cutting

20:5110,000 square or

20:55to shoot at a number like that.

20:58This is a big wide open building. It's

21:00more square footage than you think

21:03because the square footage is the

21:05expensive things stay. The bathroom, the

21:08HVAC systems, right? All of those

21:10components stay and you're losing big

21:13chunks of big wide open space. It's not

21:16like this is a 65,000t office building

21:18or a school where your cost per square

21:21foot of removing something. You still

21:24don't get the utility of 473 a square

21:26foot for every one you take off. you get

21:28some reduced value. It's worse in a

21:31building like this because the spaces

21:32are so big. So if the

21:36you know that's a I don't know how this

21:39group wants to handle that kind of that

21:41kind of request.

21:42>> I think I think the way the process

21:43would work is like so we get through

21:46this October through the estimate and

21:48the reconciliation and see what that

21:50number is right and then

21:52>> come up with ideas. That's when the

21:55select board as a group would decide if

21:57that number can be brought to the

22:00residents. If they decide as a group

22:02that that's number has to be less, then

22:05we go back to the drawing board and we

22:07take figure out what programming we take

22:09out of it.

22:10>> Yeah.

22:10>> So, so we we build it out to meet all

22:13needs to to needs that we're asking for

22:17and then if the select board decides

22:19that Yeah. Okay.

22:20>> No, I I feel like as for my

22:2430 million is still high for town

22:26because now I'm telling it's not going

22:28to pass. We have to come around five

22:31million less 25 then we can work on

22:34that. So how we are going to do that

22:36without losing the space and see here

22:39like last time you came with the

22:40fabricated and this time prefabricated

22:43and you are didn't add the

22:45pre-fabricated this time. We want that

22:47like job so we can

22:48>> right but but understand that the

22:50difference between the prefabricated

22:52savings is being offset by construction

22:55costs going up 5% every year. The longer

22:57you wait if you wait two more years 25%

23:01of your increase is just from waiting.

23:04So the longer you wait you you can't

23:06your your 30 million use that number

23:09every year gets you less and less and

23:11less and less and less. Right? So that's

23:13the that's the the trick here. So, it's

23:16finding that right balance between

23:18>> a budget that will pass cuz right, you

23:21don't want you don't want to get to a

23:22point where people say no,

23:23>> right?

23:24>> Again, there's been some good some good

23:27thought and some good alternatives that

23:29have been brought up. So, it's what's

23:30finding that right that right

23:32connection.

23:33>> This is just construction. Is this just

23:34construction cost or was this was this

23:37the to this was total budget?

23:38>> This was not

23:41>> just construction. Right. So the the

23:44other piece that there are other costs

23:46that will go into that

23:47>> my perception like in 11,000 square ft²

23:50if you use prefabricate definitely you

23:52can save some money there.

23:54>> Yes.

23:55>> So but yeah not right you didn't put

23:57right now but you can think about that

23:59also other option.

24:02>> Yeah I think I think that's just we just

24:04have to get through the process to see

24:05what the savings is.

24:06>> Yeah and under and again understand that

24:08this is just this is just construction.

24:10That's a good Right. So on top of that

24:12you have soft costs you have

24:15>> I mean FFN in something like this isn't

24:17huge because it's a lot of

24:19>> storage but it's not it's not zero right

24:23or you know it's the decision of are you

24:25taking all the old furniture with you or

24:26you know all of those things which we

24:28haven't gotten that far yet but all of

24:30that will be in the number we put

24:32together

24:32>> after the October estimate to say okay

24:35here's where we are now and okay what do

24:38we do now

24:38>> and then we'll present in November to

24:40the board and based on the programming

24:43>> program I'm giving you the like as per

24:45like what I think

24:47>> of course

24:47>> number will come around 25 going to pass

24:50like residency this number is a good and

24:53we are using the existing existing

24:55properties renovating them not like

24:58throwing something new we're not

25:00building anything

25:01>> and that's good idea like reuse it any

25:03longer

25:06>> okay yeah just I mean for perspective if

25:09you took

25:11Uh um if you cut, you know, 25% of that

25:16473, say you went to a prefab building

25:20and whatever whatever way we were able

25:22to minimize the cost and you dropped

25:24that cost just for round numbers to $350

25:27a square foot, the cost for that

25:29building would still be just under $4

25:31million. So you would still like even if

25:35we were able to say renovate renovate

25:37and you know go with the cheapest

25:39possible option which I don't even know

25:40if you could build an it would likely be

25:43office heavy than that for 350 you would

25:46still you know we'd be saving a million

25:49just you know a million and a half just

25:51under that. So it's like we're we don't

25:54want to chase this too much. This was

25:55just trying to give a high level sum.

25:57>> Yeah. No I think that Keith's point is

25:59is is is right on. let's

26:02>> move with this, take those comments, you

26:04know, and and again, we're nowhere close

26:06to saying this is the job, right? So,

26:09this is just the this is just the next

26:11step.

26:11>> The other thing I also noticed for for

26:14renovation also you still like 434 that

26:18like looks higher. New you are charging

26:20473 but for just like how many dollar

26:24less? $40 less.

26:26>> Yeah.

26:27Well, but he in the packet that Keith

26:30sent out, you've got his breakdown.

26:32>> Yeah. It comes with, you know, it's

26:34that is the biggest misnomer with

26:36renovation is is that while we're

26:39renovating so much of what if you have

26:42to repair so much of what you have and

26:45bring that up to code,

26:48it it's not always the cheapest option

26:50and it's not always if it is the least

26:54expensive option, it's always not by

26:56much. We see this on every job because

26:58people leave out the code upgrade piece

27:01of that. There are things that you just

27:04can't quote just fix. There's things you

27:06have to fully upgrade because of the age

27:08of the building. So, if you take a look

27:10at this the sheet that Keith sent, this

27:13is the breakdown and what drives that

27:15434. It's not a

27:18you know, it always it seems like it

27:20always comes out close in the end

27:23because with aged buildings, there's so

27:25much to do. Renovating something newer.

27:27Sure. Right. But something that's older

27:30can be, you know,

27:32>> can really can really.

27:33>> It's not the stairs that's driving this

27:35number.

27:35>> No, [laughter]

27:37no, no. It's lots it's lots. It's it's

27:39death by a thousand cuts, right? It

27:41really it's it's all the divisions of

27:44work, right?

27:45>> The breakdown.

27:45>> People think about the aesthetics that

27:47they see renovation also. You talking

27:49the same rate of same rate for new

27:51construction and same rate for

27:53renovation.

27:56Yeah, that's what Yes, that's what they

27:57carried. Yeah. Again, you have to

28:00understand that the that the

28:03they priced what was on the drawings

28:05last, you know, last time and this is

28:08>> there should be some difference like

28:10there should be different when you

28:11already have existing infrastructure,

28:13you have to make it up to date with that

28:15or

28:16>> sure but at the end of the day

28:17>> the price I can't see any difference

28:19like new new construction and renovating

28:21the existing construction they totally

28:24>> sure but at the end of the day if you

28:25took $40 off of all these prices it's

28:27still a $27 million ion dollar job, not

28:2930, right? It's not it's 10, it's going

28:32to come down 10%. So, yes, but in the

28:35end, understand that it also wasn't

28:38they made some assumptions based on a

28:42renovation that wasn't designed on

28:45buildings that weren't fully, you know,

28:47there was no design. You know, this

28:48number at the top was a set of 60%

28:51building plans, right? Plan specs, the

28:53whole nine yards that drove a number.

28:56This this lower half of the sheet is

28:59really about a rough idea if I renovate

29:02it. Right? So you you it's a fine point,

29:06but they had a reason after they looked

29:07at it internally.

29:09Okay, it's not 4473, it's 434, right? If

29:13you dropped all of it by $40, you know,

29:16yeah, you'd save 1.6 million. So we'd be

29:18at it'd be a million dollar difference.

29:20a million and a half dollar difference

29:21is a million and a half enough to use an

29:24old building and have it not meet your

29:26programmatic needs. So that's the

29:29>> the point is is we're looking at very

29:31specific numbers that were obtained

29:34>> 3 years

29:35>> but without the specificity of a

29:38detailed set of draws in in reality

29:41these numbers should be 8.700

29:4416 million straight and 5.300

29:48because by giving them

29:50>> dollar values to the single digit we

29:53give the idea this 30.7 7

29:58>> is way more specific

30:00>> than this 30.8.

30:02>> And so we could have discussions about

30:04it could be 31, it could be 32, it could

30:06be 27. All of those are true depending

30:09on what the actual details of what we

30:12actually do for scope, right? What we

30:14design.

30:15>> So John, I have a question on the um and

30:18I'm going to carry this exercise a

30:19little bit farther just so a little more

30:21clarification. The numbers that are

30:23used, the 473 number for cost per square

30:26foot, those were the numbers that were

30:27driven three years ago, right? Three

30:30years.

30:30>> Well, 20 in the March 2020,

30:32>> the rena number

30:34>> and in 2025, so year and a half, two

30:36years ago. So, it's with an except you

30:38were talking about 5% a year increase on

30:40construction costs. So, that would that

30:42473 is probably closer

30:45>> by next year.

30:47>> So, did you price did you look at these

30:49for right for right now? Was that 473 in

30:52today dollars?

30:53>> I would have to ask Shane. I'm not sure.

30:56I It may It may have been a direct poll

30:58from our estimate.

30:59>> That's my point. So I guess my point is

31:01that that cost is probably if those are

31:03from 2023 or even 2025,

31:06>> it was 2020. It would have been

31:07>> going to be higher than that. So So the

31:09del So the delta between the 434 and the

31:12473 is actually going to be greater.

31:14>> But even

31:16uh could be Yeah. But also too remember

31:20up above you're using a 473

31:24from 2025 itself. So even if you took

31:27that the you know the cost to do that

31:29building from two years ago

31:32>> you know

31:33>> or year and a half ago is no longer 473.

31:37It's 473 * 1.075

31:41do 18 months. That's my point. So it's

31:42not 30 anymore. It's 30 something. So it

31:44it makes renovation of anything even

31:46less of an option in my opinion

31:49>> if these numbers are newer.

31:53Yeah. Look, the numbers are clo I think

31:54the exercise that Fontaine was trying to

31:57show is that

31:59>> the numbers are close.

32:00>> Yeah.

32:01>> And what you can't see in comparison of

32:03numbers is the program.

32:06>> What you're going to see on the screen

32:07that they've been working on is a heck

32:09of a lot better than if you just made

32:12what you had

32:14better. And again, that last 11,000

32:16square feet, what is that? Where do you

32:19put it? Where do you drop it on the

32:20build? You know, there

32:22there was no design thought to that. It

32:25was just them saying, "We're 11, you're

32:2711,000 ft short of this 65,000

32:31>> square feet number." Yeah. So, to to

32:33point,

32:34>> yeah, if you get to a point where you've

32:35got to cut program to fit into a budget,

32:39the discussion of where you would cut it

32:41hasn't even happened yet. Right. right?

32:43You know, do you vehicle storage

32:45building cut it in half? Like, who

32:46knows? Like, that'll that's the stuff

32:48we'll have to talk about next. But until

32:50we had a

32:51>> plan that everybody bought in on

32:54>> at least roughly,

32:56>> that's where I'm trying to get to.

32:57>> You've got to start because then you

32:59start throwing price darts at it and

33:01suddenly

33:03>> you're talking about specificity that

33:05doesn't exist yet, but we're trying to

33:06get there. So I think what this was to

33:08try to talk about was that

33:11yeah the water department building

33:15would be almost as expensive as the as

33:18the new build

33:19>> then even if this is let's say these are

33:21all 2025 numbers.

33:23>> Um and I'm not surprised that it's not

33:26only off by a few dollars. I have this

33:28discussion

33:29all the time on school projects where

33:32the cost of renovation

33:35is all is often very close to the cost

33:38of new because all of those code

33:40required triggers force you to do things

33:43that you don't see. They're all above

33:45the ceiling and at the end of the day

33:46then you still have to make the building

33:48look better for the workers or for the

33:50students or whatever the subject right

33:52>> wherever the tenant is. But you spend a

33:54lot of money on systems that are old and

33:58past their useful life. And the only way

34:00to get to them is to tear down ceilings

34:02and to tear down walls that you then

34:04have to put back. So you get no no

34:06increased value.

34:07>> It's like a car

34:08>> from a program.

34:08>> You can keep fixing a car forever at a

34:11certain cost, but eventually it's going

34:12to have to be replaced.

34:13>> Oh, true. And then you've also got the

34:16energy code, too. We didn't mention

34:17that. So it's not just structural. the

34:18new energy code that the state has. It's

34:21it gets harder and harder to meet the

34:23codes

34:24with older construction, right? Just

34:26because, you know, windows aren't

34:29windows are now largely double and

34:31triple pain when you put them in. I

34:33appreciate I appreciate the exercise you

34:35went through and it it opened my eyes a

34:37little bit to really convince me that I

34:39think moving forward with a prefab as

34:42opposed to a renovation. I'm very

34:44comfortable going in that direction as

34:46opposed to renovating

34:48>> and and we'll have the rest of the

34:50committee feels the same way.

34:52>> We'll end up and we'll have again within

34:55you know six weeks we'll we'll start to

34:58have those numbers back, right? Is that

34:59what we we talking about? We talked

35:01about reconciling on like the 22nd of

35:03October,

35:04>> somewhere that third week of October.

35:06So, we'd be ready to have a discussion,

35:09>> you know, start, you know, show you the

35:11reconciled numbers probably the

35:12following week and then talk about,

35:15okay,

35:16>> what do we think we need to do in

35:17preparation for the select board

35:18November,

35:19>> you know, and if that number is and

35:21folks are, you know, who knows what the

35:23who knows what the market's going to do.

35:25>> Are you comfortable moving in that

35:26direction?

35:27>> Yeah. Can I this? So you you see this

35:30rate uh the rate like we put a for

35:34renovated DPW also 473 y

35:36>> and DPW building is better condition

35:38than the water and sever building but

35:42you still like put the rate so the rate

35:44discre discrepancy there I don't know

35:47who put that one

35:48>> it should be different that building

35:51still needs to be renovated and

35:52>> brought renovated

35:53>> no no what he's saying is if water's

35:56worse why is the DPW number showing

35:59So the rate discrepancy is there. So it

36:01come with the right numbers. The number

36:02is not right. Somebody copy copy cut and

36:05paste. So number is not right.

36:09>> Well the 20

36:10>> Oh no but the DPW rena required the Oh

36:13you were attaching

36:15>> you were attaching the new building to

36:16the to the re building the existing.

36:19That's what that's what jacked up the

36:20cost.

36:20>> That's right.

36:21>> That's why that was more expensive.

36:23>> That's right. It wasn't a pure

36:26>> just renovate it. It was you were going

36:28to be attaching

36:30this extra 11,000 square ft if I'm

36:33correct

36:34>> with the second floor

36:35>> with

36:35>> to a building that structurally couldn't

36:38handle it. That's what drove the DPW

36:40cost higher. Yeah.

36:41>> Because you you couldn't bolt you

36:43weren't going to bolt that extra

36:44building to the water and sewer. You

36:46were going to bolt it to the DPW. Took a

36:49while. Two years, right? Um you were

36:50going to bolt that to the backside of

36:52DPW. I remember Fontaine saying at one

36:55meeting that people didn't understand

36:57how much work that actually was to try

37:00to save the DPW building to scab onto

37:04it. Like one of those walls was going to

37:06completely deteriorate if they tried to

37:10touch it. So they were going to spend

37:11extra money to try to save it so that

37:14you could make that connection. That's

37:15why. So it's the condition of the

37:18building itself. So, it's not it's not

37:21that you're renovating it. It's that you

37:23are renovating and attaching something

37:25to it. So, yes, if you were going to not

37:28do this 11,000 square ft, yes, you

37:31probably could do that 35,000 square ft

37:34for less, but because you were going to

37:37attach to it, that's what drove drove

37:39the number higher, if that makes sense.

37:42So, it's not a wrong number. It's that

37:44given the fact that you were going to do

37:46an additional renovation to it to add to

37:49add program

37:50>> you could put the whole we could put the

37:52whole building all 66907

37:55at 434 [music]

37:57and you end up changing it by $2.5

38:00million and that 470 that 474 it's not

38:05completely 2025 or 2026 pricing too. So

38:08you end up at 18 months of inflation and

38:13we're not we're not far off. We I think

38:16you know the purpose of this exercise

38:17was to show that the in our eyes was

38:20that the water sewer garage renovation a

38:22full renovation doesn't get us to a $20

38:24million project with the snap of

38:27fingers. I think was what our intent was

38:30if that makes sense.

38:36We have more work to do.

38:37>> Mhm.

38:38>> We have more work to do.

38:39>> Yeah.

38:46>> So, where are we now?

38:49>> Well, I think we have to get my opinion,

38:51I think we I think we just have to get

38:52through the estimate process and then

38:55>> see what those numbers are and then work

38:57through the program to see if we have to

38:59reduce it from there.

39:00>> Yep.

39:04Should we move on?

39:07All right. So, that would bring us to

39:09Paul for the

39:11>> Thank you. The sectional design portion.

39:15Okay. I'm not sure how far back um I

39:20should go and trying to update

39:22everybody, but I will

39:25give you a quick summary on what we've

39:28done so far. So this is the proposed

39:31reworking of the site and we did this in

39:35a sharet process as everybody been

39:37hearing all of how we got to this

39:40layout. So the idea is to take down the

39:44existing building here build the new

39:46administration building and then once

39:48that's done work on the vehicle storage

39:51building. sort of a phasing but using

39:53the same the same site. The existing

39:56salt shed would stay and this new

39:58recycling center that's currently being

40:00designed is being fit onto the site as

40:02well. Um the parking the vehicular

40:05circulation [snorts]

40:08main entry would be there. The vehicles

40:10could move around the site and use the

40:12existing driveways there. This driveway

40:14would serve the recycling center and it

40:17would be enclosed and separated from the

40:20public parking here that would be

40:21accessing the administration building.

40:24Um, all of the traffic back in this

40:25portion of the site would all just be

40:27DPW staff. The public would be back

40:29there. Um, there is parking here and

40:32here. And then there are a few parking

40:35spaces here for city vehicles that would

40:37stop by the administration building to

40:38pick up parts, things like that for

40:40vehicle maintenance. And then I think at

40:43some point we'll have to coordinate with

40:45the design of the recycling center to

40:46provide an access here so we can access

40:49from the yard. Um and the fueling

40:51station it's current this is an older

40:53plan that's currently showed here. We've

40:54moved it already up to there. So those

40:57are the two main buildings that we're

40:59dealing with for that.

41:01>> And then just so everybody's aware the

41:03recycling center is being designed and

41:06developed by our our engineering

41:08department in house. That's part of the

41:10Swiffer program. Um, but HKT is so HKT

41:15is generally keeping that blank because

41:16we have a sharp design in place for

41:18that.

41:20I'm going to show you plans for two

41:23buildings. So, this is the

41:25administration building. The parking lot

41:27is on to the left side of the building

41:30there. The lower drawing is the first

41:32floor

41:38and the entry would be in that lower

41:41left corner.

41:46This is the common area and at the

41:48moment we still have the partition that

41:50would divide it into two spaces if

41:52that's needed. This is would be used for

41:55voting and community events. They'd

41:57[clears throat] enter in off the lobby

41:59and then from this lobby you'd also

42:01access the offices for the DPW. We put

42:05the conference room here so it can be

42:06used either by the office or for other

42:09events as well. It's directly accessed

42:11from the lobby. Uh we've got private

42:14offices around the perimeter of the

42:15building and then the open office with

42:17workstations in the middle and then a

42:20meeting room, couple of meeting rooms, a

42:22quiet room or lactation room,

42:24highdensity storage and a work coffee

42:26room and a small coffee point here for

42:28meetings that may happen in house there.

42:32And then off the lobby, we have two

42:33public restrooms.

42:35Off this back secure hallway, we've got

42:38staff restrooms and janitors. And then

42:41this kitchen would serve the office area

42:43and can be accessed through that hallway

42:46at the back.

42:48And then as you come down the hallway,

42:50we've got the locker rooms. The locker

42:52rooms themselves would be unisex. All

42:54the showers, we have four shower rooms

42:56there would be unisex as well. Off the

42:59locker rooms, we have a men's bunk room

43:01with 32 beds and a women's bunk room

43:04with eight beds.

43:06And then on this side of the plan, we've

43:09got the um superintendent and dispatch

43:13area, the highway foreman and war room,

43:15the park superintendent, water and sewer

43:17offices, and a records office there.

43:20And then this is actually an opening, so

43:22you can walk through this hallway to

43:24access fleet maintenance and the

43:27offices. And as you start heading

43:29towards the east side of the building,

43:32there is a decon and laundry area and

43:34that's accessible from the yard. It can

43:37also access directly into the locker

43:38rooms.

43:40And then the southern portion of the

43:42building [clears throat] is fleet

43:45maintenance. Let me maneuver over there.

43:49And the upper portion of the plan is the

43:52shops for water, sewer, highway, and

43:55parks. And then fleet makes this all

43:57down here. And then the wash bay is a

44:00drive-thru bay at the far end of the

44:02building.

44:05And then the upper floor

44:09is primarily just mezzanines

44:12and mechanical areas. So accessing it

44:15from fleet maintenance, there's a stair

44:16going up here. There's a mezzanine for

44:19storage there. The mechanical space is

44:21over the storage room that's below. And

44:24then the water sewer mezzanine is above

44:26the uh welding shop and the

44:28decontamination and laundry area. And

44:31then in the wash bay, there's also a

44:32mezzanine over the equipment room there.

44:44And then this is the vehicle storage

44:47building.

44:53We presented three options to the DPW

44:55team and this was the one that they

44:57picked that accommodates kind of the

44:59best mix of vehicles and also the

45:02accesses I think they thought could be

45:04more useful for the various divisions

45:07within the DPW. So the main portion of

45:09the garage here is drive-thru with

45:12angled parking for large and extra-large

45:14vehicles. We also have small mechanical

45:17spaces and a toilet in the upper left

45:19corner. And then these bays here, we've

45:23got tandem parking access from the south

45:25and the north. We have some smaller

45:28vehicle and storage spaces in the middle

45:30separating the two sides. And then these

45:32bays here are accessed from a door on

45:35this side. And then you see the fuel

45:37station has been located up there. And

45:40in this plan, we can accommodate 71

45:44vehicles.

45:47And then this also has a mezzanine. And

45:49this might get fine-tuned as we move

45:51into design, but the mezzanine areas are

45:55just over this northern portion of the

45:58plan here.

46:08That is the building plans. And then

46:12we are presenting three options for the

46:16exterior massing and the look of the

46:18building. And two of them are just using

46:23the um pre-engineered metal building and

46:26the insulated metal panels that are

46:28pretty standard for those. And the

46:30colors that you see are just to provide

46:32some visual interest to try to break up

46:34the large size of the building. But it

46:36would be

46:38I think pretty negligible negligible

46:40cost to change them because it's the

46:42same material. It's just getting a

46:44different color of the material. The

46:45third option we're showing has a screen

46:48that's on the main facade of the

46:50building facing South Street. And

46:54we're proposing that as a way also to

46:56try to break down the scale of the

46:59building and make it a little more

47:00street friendly and also providing some

47:03sort of solar shade because that whole

47:04face of the administration building is a

47:07large face to the west. So we were

47:09hoping that that screen would provide

47:11some shading for the occupants inside

47:13the offices on that side of the

47:15building. So this option is option A and

47:19it's the banding option. Just an

47:22overview of the site.

47:29Uh we've got the administration building

47:31here, vehicle storage there,

47:34administration and maintenance, the

47:36recycling center. We took a shot at what

47:38that might look like. And and the uh

47:41salt shed there. And and the site stays

47:43the same on all three of the the images

47:46I'm going to show you here. So the main

47:48idea of this and we've also had been

47:51requested to provide some monitors

47:52rather than skylights for the open

47:55office down below because it's a very

47:56large space and people towards the

47:58interior are pretty far away from the

48:00windows and don't get natural light. So

48:02the light monitor facing north will help

48:04them get light for that.

48:06>> And Paul, if I don't mind Oh, yeah.

48:08>> interrupting. And I think a point here

48:11to note is that we are required by

48:13building code for a space that size to

48:15have roof lighting or monitor lighting.

48:18Um and then working so working with our

48:20team um they chose this style as opposed

48:24to skylights because skylights are a

48:26facilities person's worst nightmare. So

48:29um kind of switched this that that was

48:32kind of the focus here, but it is

48:33required by code. And then, you know,

48:35one of the things that we heard, you

48:37know, a year and a half ago or two years

48:39ago when we started this process from

48:40our staff. Um, and this building is a

48:43clear example of that. There are many

48:44offices where there's no u natural light

48:48at all. Um, so this is helpful. It gets

48:51that whole pool area some some good

48:53light.

48:55And I have one question like why will

48:57you have two common areas not one

49:01the first

49:01>> oh and I think that was because it in

49:04the event that something needs to be

49:05happen in one of the common areas that

49:07partition can be closed off and then the

49:10other half could still be used by the

49:11DPW staff because that will basically be

49:13like a meeting room training room lunch

49:16area. I mean, that's that's it that's

49:18actually its main purpose is for

49:20meetings and and trainings for our staff

49:23and be able to have that separate. So,

49:25like if there's a training going on, you

49:27could still use the other space for

49:28something else. Um, and then I don't

49:31know if we'll get to a point where that

49:33is for public space other than voting,

49:35but like to be able to open that all up

49:38for the voting one, two, three times a

49:40year. what it is, what's the other has

49:42always been part of that process because

49:44>> and the voting the voting is there are

49:45two precincts there. There's precinct

49:47five and 10. So you need to petition in

49:49the two different rooms in order to

49:51accommodate each precinct separately.

49:56>> All right. So the main concept for this

49:58option is kind of the vertical banding

50:03on the buildings and the administration

50:05building and the vehicle storage sort of

50:07tie into each other with that vertical

50:08banding.

50:17So that's a bit more of a straight shot

50:19at the administration building. A look

50:22down the yard between the two buildings.

50:24And then this elevation is the side of

50:28the administration building there.

50:32And there are clear story windows at the

50:35maintenance portion just to try to get

50:36daylight in again to try to meet the

50:38energy code for daylighting within a

50:40space that is a certain story high,

50:43certain height and um just the square

50:45footage you need to uh provide

50:47daylighting inside there.

50:53Then just a couple more views of the

50:55vehicle storage building. On both

50:58buildings, we're providing CMU Wayne

51:01coat at the bottom just to try to

51:02protect the metal panels, keep them up

51:03off the ground so they don't weather it

51:05and deteriorate just from salt and

51:08weather and also vehicles moving around.

51:10So, it tries to keep the building

51:12somewhat protected with a more durable

51:14base.

51:19And this next option is the wedge. And

51:22it's because we've got this we're using

51:25the different colored panels there that

51:26kind of have these two different wedges

51:28meeting on the administration building.

51:31And then the vehicle storage has a bit

51:34more of a color blocking um pattern to

51:37the insulated metal panels.

51:44And there's front facade for the

51:46administration. The same view down in

51:48between the buildings into the yard and

51:50that south elevation of the

51:52administration building.

52:06And then this last option is the screen.

52:08This is the one as far as pricing. We're

52:10going to ask that it be priced as an

52:12alternate so the town can decide whether

52:14they want to accept it or not. But the

52:17main element is this perforated metal

52:20screen that will be out the front. The

52:22building itself is going to be a little

52:24more simple. We won't have all the color

52:25changes because the screen sort of uh

52:28has that element to break up the

52:29building and to present a more um

52:32communityfriendly face, I guess, to the

52:35to the street.

52:41These are the same angles on the

52:43administration building

52:48and then the vehicle storage building.

52:54That is it.

52:56>> Thank you.

52:58>> So you it's almost a metal screening

53:00right over the windows. Mhm.

53:02>> Got it. Like a diff diffuser.

53:04>> Exactly.

53:12Great.

53:13>> And and just so everybody's aware, um

53:16all DPW division managers met with um

53:20all our Navy last met with HKT last

53:22week. Um

53:25and they brought m they brought more

53:27designs to us. We narrowed it down to

53:30these three here. Um we worked through

53:33the actual programming of it. Um there

53:36were very minor um changes, doors here,

53:39doors there, a couple other different

53:41things, but um for the most part um you

53:44know, and our group was really I think

53:46excited at this point about what they're

53:49seeing here. Um and I have not heard any

53:53negative comments since the meeting. So,

53:55I take that as, you know, everybody was

53:57really pleased with the way the layout

53:59was happened and um I I think it's been

54:02a good it's been a really good uh

54:04process.

54:05>> Was there a preference on the design?

54:07Did I don't know if they saw all three

54:09design options.

54:11>> Um I think the the the com the

54:14conversations were more about the roof

54:15line and the windows. Um there were some

54:18com comments about the screen. I think

54:21there is a little concern about the

54:24maintenance of that and what that looks

54:26like. Um, but HKT is, you know, we

54:30talked about u they showed us some

54:32different options for that too. So,

54:34we'll still work through that with uh

54:36with to understand it better.

54:39>> Sure.

54:42>> And if you'd like to see anything else,

54:44let me know. I'll I can run back through

54:46any of the plans or

54:48>> No, no. I mean obviously I mean I'll you

54:51I'll be there occasionally to vote

54:53assuming I don't move but it's really

54:55it's really the town's building and it's

54:57it's the it's the worker the workers are

54:59going to be going there every day. So I

55:01like you know to a to a certain extent

55:05short of you know some exorbitant cost

55:08defer to what their preference is

55:10>> I and I think

55:11>> I think that workplace environment I

55:13think is very important. Mhm. And

55:15>> I think HKT did a good really good job

55:17of um

55:20really make having a lot of efficiencies

55:22within the space. Um we [clears throat]

55:24have some room for growth. Um like

55:26there's a couple of extra

55:29>> um private offices right now that we

55:32don't have people for. Um the pool area

55:36has plenty of room for some growth in

55:37there with staff. Um, but you know, I

55:41think they did a real good job keeping

55:43everything pretty tight and and fairly

55:46efficient. So,

55:48>> would the mezzanine areas be areas of

55:50potential expansion depending on what

55:52would happen, you know, say 20 years

55:54from now?

55:55>> Depends on the type of expansion

55:57>> that's proposed for that because

55:58mezzanines are restricted to the amount

56:01of area that they can

56:04cover.

56:05>> Okay? because they're open to the the uh

56:08level below

56:09>> and so by code they're restricted to how

56:11much how big they can be relative to the

56:13area that they open onto they also need

56:16to stay open so if you start enclosing

56:18it I'm working on a project right now

56:19goass it where they enclose their whole

56:21mezzanine and it's wildly

56:24[clears throat]

56:24>> against code

56:26>> so you just you can use it but you you

56:28have to be careful in how

56:30>> and I think in this case like those

56:32mezzanines were really used for a

56:34inexpensive

56:35storage solution

56:37>> um to just utilize that space,

56:39>> you know, because we have the high roof

56:42line in the maintenance area. We need

56:44that for the

56:45>> for the fixing the trucks. So, I think

56:48we just

56:49>> it would be important to note that

56:50that's

56:51>> that upper part of the picture. It's not

56:54a true second floor, right? So when you

56:57make reference to it, it's really just

56:59the

57:00>> these four the three or four orange

57:02platforms, you know, that are that look

57:05like

57:06>> crawl space type of

57:07>> except it's it's it's no it's tr truly

57:10truly a structure that you'll, you know,

57:12set of stairs to go up and it's do it a

57:14lot in fire stations and as well just to

57:17because you have the clear story height.

57:19>> Yeah.

57:20>> How can we make some storage without

57:23>> paying for an entire second floor?

57:25>> Makes sense. I mean, our current

57:26building actually has a few of those

57:28already.

57:28>> That's what I was Yeah.

57:30>> Yeah. Yeah.

57:38>> Yeah.

57:40>> Any other questions for Paul?

57:45>> No. Keith? No. No.

57:47>> Anything for John or Brian?

57:51All right. We'll move on then. Item

57:52number seven, discuss the meeting

57:54schedule and potential select board

57:56presentation in November.

57:57>> Do you want to do Can we do six?

57:58>> I'm sorry.

58:00>> Are we good? Do we need to talk about

58:01six?

58:02>> I'm No, it's my bad.

58:04>> Um

58:05>> I know we have to redo it.

58:07>> Yeah. So, I think we'll skip six.

58:09>> Okay.

58:09>> Okay. So, we'll move that to the next

58:11meeting.

58:11>> Yeah.

58:13>> So, discuss meeting schedule and

58:15potential select board presentation in

58:17November.

58:19>> I think so. So I think um

58:26so I'm not sure there's a need for a

58:28MOAC meeting between now and

58:32October 22nd when they're going to do

58:34their reconciliation.

58:35>> Mhm.

58:36>> Um so I would look to

58:40this group to decide if

58:43having a meeting that following week is

58:46appropriate or the first week of

58:49November.

58:51So the question I would have so what I

58:54would say is is if you could plan for

59:00let's assume the number tracks where we

59:01hope it tracks and stays where it is

59:04right I worry that if we have to have a

59:06we need to have a meeting right we need

59:09to have it in o uh maybe sooner rather

59:12than later um

59:16so maybe set it up for that last week of

59:18October but If

59:21>> you know what I'm saying, right? If we

59:22if if it suddenly comes in and we're

59:24like, "Okay, we got to run back to these

59:26guys and say, come up with some options,

59:28>> not to finalize it, but just come to the

59:30end with,

59:32>> hey, here are some thoughts on how we

59:34could

59:34>> make some adjustments if the market has

59:36gone crazy or anything with tariffs and

59:38all that."

59:39>> Um,

59:41but that doesn't happen instantaneously,

59:43right? So, I guess when would you want

59:46to let's work backwards. Perfect

59:49scenario. When would you want to meet?

59:51When's a select board meeting?

59:54>> So, we haven't chosen one, but I think

59:56we're targeting the second meeting in

59:59November, which falls on third week,

1:00:03>> week the 16th.

1:00:05>> It would be November 24th would be this

1:00:08would be the second meeting in November

1:00:10for

1:00:11>> That's plenty of time. Okay, good. for

1:00:13select board.

1:00:15>> I just want to make sure we had enough

1:00:16time

1:00:18to react. That gives us a month. I mean,

1:00:21we would take it all obviously, but if

1:00:24I would say plan an MC meeting for that

1:00:28last week of October,

1:00:31>> and if we need to pivot because

1:00:34something happened, we can then

1:00:36communicate and maybe push an extra week

1:00:39if the team needs time to

1:00:41>> Do we want to plan? I know there's a

1:00:44couple people missing, but um the 28th

1:00:47at 6 PM.

1:00:49>> Sure.

1:00:52Yeah, I can do that. Does that work for

1:00:55you?

1:00:55>> Yeah, it's fine too.

1:00:58>> Mark.

1:01:03>> Okay, let's just Yeah, stick with that.

1:01:08>> October, right?

1:01:09>> 26th on October.

1:01:11>> 20 October 28th.

1:01:14Wednesday,

1:01:15>> Wednesday, 28th.

1:01:27>> [snorts]

1:01:30>> All right. Then if we need another

1:01:31meeting, we will

1:01:33yeah put one together.

1:01:38Let's hope not. All right. Anything else

1:01:40on meetings?

1:01:43There being none, item number eight,

1:01:44other business.

1:01:46Anybody have anything else?

1:01:50Oh, I don't

1:01:51>> going once, twice.

1:01:53>> Oh, thank you.

1:01:54>> Three times. All right.

1:01:56>> Item number nine, motion to adjurnn.

1:02:00>> So moved.

1:02:02>> Second. I have a

1:02:02>> motion and a second to adjurnn. All

1:02:04those in favor? I I

1:02:06>> Thank you, everybody. Thank you, Mark.