2026-10-29 - Municipal Facilities Optimization Committee

00:02Good evening. This is the Municipal

00:04Facilities Optimization Committee

00:05meeting October 29th, 2026. We just have

00:09a little preliminary business to get to

00:10before we get to the main part of the

00:14meeting. Um, we have a quorum. So, this

00:15meeting is called to order and we have

00:17the minutes from July 9th and September

00:199th. I think that we can take those as

00:21one item. Um, any questions, concerns on

00:25the meeting minutes?

00:26>> I need to abstain from September. That's

00:27the only

00:28>> Okay. Anything else? Any comments or

00:31questions? No. We have a motion to

00:32approve.

00:34>> Yes.

00:35>> We have a motion and a second to approve

00:37the meeting minutes from July 9th and

00:38September 9th, 2026. All those in favor

00:41signify by saying I. I.

00:43>> Opposed? So voted.

00:464 July and 3 to zero for September with

00:51one abstension.

00:53Okay. We have a couple bills to pay. We

00:56have Vertex

00:57Company again. And I think we can take

00:59these as one item. Fertex companies for

01:02dated 8:31 2026 and 9:30 2026 both in

01:07the amount of $2,623.

01:10Any questions on those bills?

01:14There being none, do we have a motion to

01:16approve?

01:18>> Second. We have a motion and a second to

01:20approve the the uh bills for Vert.Ex

01:22Company 8312026

01:25and 9:30 2026

01:27for the amount of $2,623

01:30each. All those in favor signify by

01:32saying I

01:34>> I opposed. So voted unanimously four to

01:37zero.

01:38>> Item number four, review and act to

01:41authorize an amendment to the agreement

01:42with HKT architects for additional MEP

01:45services.

01:47John, do you want to talk that through?

01:49>> Sure. Um, we have uh we originally got a

01:54proposal from HKT, as you're aware, to

01:57uh extend uh the work on the project.

01:59And that initial proposal was for

02:01$96,500.

02:03And what ended up happening subsequently

02:06is we said, "Hey, um there was some

02:10discussion about the MEP systems, right?

02:12And how much we should uh how much we

02:15should include or not include for the

02:18MEP. Um the MEP had not been included in

02:21the original uh in the original

02:23amendment. Um so that the final the the

02:26965 increased to and I sent you the

02:30wrong one, Keith.

02:32One second here.

02:36The full final amount instead of 96,500

02:41increased to

02:46104200.

02:49So an additional

02:54>> not going to

02:55>> 77

02:56>> 7700

03:00>> correct. So, an additional 7,700 to

03:03HKT's contract. So, um would be looking

03:06just to get that that additional amount

03:09um increased

03:11or that total amount increased to cover

03:13the 7700 total.

03:19>> I just have one question.

03:20>> Sure.

03:21>> Was that the 7,700 included in that

03:24first allocation that we did at town

03:26meeting?

03:27>> Yes, this all all the funds are within

03:29Okay. So much they've been appropriated.

03:31Yep.

03:31>> Okay.

03:31>> Yep.

03:32>> Yep.

03:32>> That's all I need to know.

03:35>> Anything else?

03:36>> So, with that approval, we'll get the

03:37amendment to to the town for signature.

03:40>> Sure.

03:40>> Sure.

03:42Any other questions, discussion? Do we

03:44have a motion

03:46to approve

03:49to amend the agreement with HKT

03:51architects for additional MEP services

03:54from 96,500

03:56to $104,200?

04:03>> Motion to approve.

04:05>> We have a motion. Do we have a second?

04:07>> Okay. All those in favor signify by

04:08saying I. I. Opposed. So voted

04:11unanimously. Thank you everybody.

04:14>> Thank you.

04:15>> And item number five, we have gone two

04:17meetings now without a vice chair.

04:20Fortunately, the chair has been here,

04:23but I think it's time to elect a vice

04:25chair.

04:26Um, so I have spoken Steve Walsh reach

04:30when he heard about this Steve Walsh

04:31reached out to me and he's interested in

04:32filling that role. So I would like to

04:35nominate him to be the vice chair. Do we

04:39have any other nominations to consider?

04:42deep.

04:43>> No.

04:44>> Any discussion around that?

04:48>> There being none, do we have a motion to

04:51select Steve Walsh as the vice chair for

04:54the mun municipal facilities

04:55optimization committee?

04:57>> So moved.

04:58>> Second.

04:59>> Second.

05:00>> All those in favor signify by saying I.

05:03I. So voted unanimously.

05:05Congratulations, Steve, if you're

05:06listening. [laughter]

05:09Item number six, we have an update from

05:12the design designer architect.

05:14>> Who is taking that?

05:15>> Is me.

05:16>> All right.

05:17>> And there's really not a lot to update.

05:19We've basically been on kind of a

05:21holding pattern while we've been going

05:22through the cost estimate for the

05:24redesign facility and working with

05:27Fontaine Brothers to go through the PE

05:29options and to analyze how we can reduce

05:31the cost from the initial estimate that

05:34was done on the redesign.

05:36Any questions around that?

05:38>> No, I just want to say that um you know

05:41the project team obviously has done a

05:42ton of work over the summer. Um our

05:46staffs have been involved also with

05:48them. Um estimates were done initial

05:51estimates were done last week or so. Um,

05:54and I would I will tell you that in the

05:56past six or seven working days, there's

05:59been a ton of work by this team um to

06:01really dive into the VE um and reducing

06:06the cost of the project. Um, and when we

06:10get into this the, you know, the next

06:13presentation here, you'll see all the

06:14work that was done to get us where we're

06:17at.

06:19>> Okay,

06:20any questions? Any other questions,

06:22comments?

06:24concerns. There being none, we'll move

06:26on. Item number seven, we have an update

06:29from the construction manager. Who's

06:30going to take that?

06:31>> I'll take you guys through the

06:33>> All right, John.

06:34>> Um, with some side commentary by

06:37Fontaine as we go.

06:38>> Okay. Um so if you direct your attention

06:41to the presentation I believe it was in

06:44your folders but um this what we wanted

06:46to do is basically very high level of

06:50the chronology of the project and then

06:52the summary of the costs and where those

06:56have played out uh some things that have

06:58impacted those some things we're looking

07:00at to try and offset those and then

07:02ultimately move you know provide a

07:05recommendation for the you know the most

07:07cost-effective solution that still helps

07:10address some of the issues at the DPW

07:13that we have today. Um, next slide,

07:15please. So, a little bit for the

07:17timeline. Um, taking you through very,

07:19you know, for anybody who's just picking

07:21this up for the first time. As you may

07:23or may not be aware, in 2024, there was

07:26the initial push with this project. Um,

07:28moved forward with a different architect

07:30for a project that was an addition

07:32renovation. It was basically a new

07:35administrative building tied to the

07:37existing DPW garage, but literally tied

07:40to it. So, new construction um tied to

07:42the existing building. Um that design

07:45got through schematic through schematic.

07:48Um and after schematic, the decision was

07:50made by the town to move ahead with a

07:53new designer. um the initial designer,

07:56the contract wasn't renewed,

07:58uh brought HKT in to um to to develop

08:01that design and help us get to the 2024

08:05town meeting and ballot votes. Um they

08:08did that. Um we had numbers, went to the

08:10town meeting, passed a town meeting, but

08:12failed at the ballot. So after that that

08:15initial um stoppage of the project

08:18really a lot of time went by and you

08:20know there had been work going on behind

08:22the scenes you know in town hall to try

08:24to figure out what to do next and in the

08:26spring of 26 the committee came back

08:29Keith came back to us and said okay we

08:31want to look at using the remaining

08:33funding to try to come up with a new

08:35approach for the project. Um what then

08:38happened was a design cheret across the

08:40way in the select board chambers really

08:42was HKT Fontaine Vertex and the town

08:46really trying to rethink

08:48the approach of the project again when

08:51HKT first came in they were really

08:52taking that initial design and trying to

08:54figure out okay what can we do with that

08:56instead rethought it and said you know

08:58what there's a way to do this you know

09:00let's go with two new buildings don't

09:03reuse anything and again there had been

09:05some looking at the you know a relook at

09:08the existing buildings and saying look

09:09there you know especially the water

09:11department building nothing there to

09:14save but let's you know let's let's do

09:16an approach where we you know redo the

09:18whole thing um next slide Keith the SD

09:22for that was completed for pricing and

09:24that first pricing that came in was was

09:27higher than expected so what can we do

09:30all right so let's still go with two

09:32separate buildings we'll do a new

09:34administration building but then

09:36renovate the existing DPW garage really

09:40um roof systems that sort of thing and

09:44look and see what happens. Uh in

09:46addition to that the team worked on

09:48[clears throat] a series of value

09:49engineering

09:51um value engineering items to try and

09:54pull that pricing down as well and give

09:57some relief valves. That pricing came

10:00back still what the folks felt was too

10:03high. So, we said, "Okay, final pivot

10:06here. Let's go with the new

10:08administration building and fleet

10:09maintenance and do zero work on the

10:12existing DPW garage. Truly use the

10:15existing building just for uh for

10:18storage. There would still be the need

10:20potentially for a roof on that building,

10:22but we can address that roof either out

10:24of contingency for the project or

10:27ultimately for out of the a capital

10:29budget from the town at some point down

10:31the way." And that was the

10:33recommendation that we bring to you

10:35tonight. A little bit about the costs.

10:39Um, basically what we did is tried to

10:41show you the four different iterations

10:43of the building. Oh, my little macros

10:46didn't pop up in Google. Um, the top

10:49building, the top item is a new and a

10:52rena. The allnew project is two would

10:56have been two new buildings. The green

10:59box talks about a new and a a rena. And

11:03the final box in blue at the bottom is

11:06just one new building, no renovation at

11:08all. Um pricing [clears throat] of the

11:11initial project from that failed was

11:14escalated forward to the same time

11:16period as now. So if you look back and

11:18go, wait a minute, that wasn't the

11:19number we voted on. No, it wasn't. What

11:21we did is brought it forward so that

11:22we're comparing four options to today.

11:26And again, the gray one isn't even on

11:27the table, but it's there for reference.

11:30Um, pricing includes current market

11:33conditions as they're known today. So,

11:35things that we know about for tariffs

11:37and all the news you've heard about

11:38that, $6.50 diesel is included in all of

11:43that, as well as escalation, moving

11:45moving that forward. And then, as

11:48applicable, we've got the VE taken out

11:50of this as well. So you heard me mention

11:53one and a half million for VE if and

11:56then in the suggested option at the

11:58bottom only 1.1 the difference is

12:00because 400,000 of that VE was suggested

12:04to the scope of a building we aren't

12:06doing anymore right so we would it's not

12:08one a.5 million of ve it's only 1.1 so

12:12the approach we took for this was the

12:14construction numbers all came from

12:15Fontaine and there's some very detailed

12:17backup for all of those subtract the VE

12:21and then add soft costs. Right? So at

12:23this point you know rather you know

12:25again with a design that is only you

12:27know is just inching its way towards you

12:30know schematic at this point for soft

12:32costs the cost for the designer for the

12:34OPM for furniture fixtures equipment and

12:37contingency we are just using a

12:39multiplier. Um, the reason why the

12:42multipliers are different is that you'll

12:44notice that in each of those options, we

12:46use 30% when there's a renovation

12:48involved and 25% when there is a a new

12:52project. The reason for that is is

12:55included in that 30% is a 10%

12:58contingency for unknowns on when you

13:01have a uh a building that you're

13:03renovating and only 5% when it's new.

13:06when it's a newer building, there's less

13:08problems, there's less surprises because

13:10you're just literally just scraping the

13:12old building and taking it down. So you

13:14it's it's you don't need to carry as

13:16much contingency. So basically that, you

13:19know, we're looking at a project right

13:21now that is a 26 million base

13:24construction cost minus a million inve

13:27gets you to 25. Uh soft costs of 6.2.

13:32Those added together is a roughly a

13:34$31.2 2 million project.

13:38Next slide, Keith.

13:40>> I know you can't see this. Um, we can

13:42pull up some VE logs, but some of the,

13:46you know, some of the items that we're

13:48talking about, you know, in the 1.1

13:50million dollar savings in VE, you had um

13:53some grading um grading associated with

13:56the recycling center for a couple

13:58hundred thousand, removing the fuel

14:01station canopy for 100,000, reducing the

14:04equipment allowance [clears throat]

14:05um built into the construction contract

14:07for 150,000. Remove the high density

14:11storage for 60,000.

14:13Simplify the HVAC in the fleet

14:15maintenance building for half a million

14:17dollars. Replacing vehicular concrete

14:20aprons at overhead doors with HDMA

14:2325,000.

14:25Downsize the generator and utilize the

14:27existing generator to provide power for

14:29the existing DPW building and reducing

14:32the generator size from 750 kows to 400.

14:36That's a $200,000 savings. and then

14:38removing the brine tank utilities from

14:40the project of another 23,000. So in

14:43discussing all of those with Keith and

14:45Keith with his staff, that is the

14:47savings of of 1.1 million. Now you say

14:51YveV, the reality is is that when the

14:53pricing came in, there wasn't time to

14:55change the design to then do an estimate

14:58that reflected the outcome, you know,

15:00the incorporation of that VE into the

15:03design yet. So with a yes, that's where

15:05we go forward. We won't talk about VE

15:08anymore. We'll incorporate those

15:09changes, have a new baseline of the $25

15:14million project, and if as the project

15:16proceeds, we hit, you know, oh wait,

15:19costs have gone up again, we'd have to

15:22ve other things, right? But at this

15:24point, we would accept the stuff that's

15:26in here and move ahead with with that

15:28project. Um

15:31so the rec next like the recommended

15:33solution um construct the new

15:36administration building the existing DPW

15:39garage excuse me becomes cold storage.

15:41No additional work on the building at

15:43this time and you can the the plan

15:47reflects the new building. The red

15:49rectangle is really what's there right

15:52now. So that would stay. And again, as I

15:54mentioned earlier, we'd contemplate roof

15:56replacement on the existing garage

15:58either as part of bid savings if

16:00successful or a future DPW capital

16:03budget item. Neither, you know, does

16:04neither item that either approach

16:07doesn't need to be discussed now. But

16:09the the point is, you know, the it's a

16:12do nothing solution for the uh existing

16:15DPW garage as of today.

16:18>> So, I will stop and

16:20>> there was one there was one more slide

16:22about schedule too. Sorry.

16:23>> It's okay.

16:24>> Thank you. Uh schedule. What does that

16:26do to our schedule? So again, all of

16:29this discussion tonight is in

16:31preparation for presentation to select

16:34board and getting this project hopefully

16:37on in front of uh the voters in May. If

16:42with a successful town meeting and

16:44ballot vote in May, we jump right back

16:46into

16:48um you know pre precon and design,

16:51right? I mean the project isn't designed

16:53yet with the goal of moving forward um

16:56with construction at the end of 27. And

17:00just to be clear, one of the things, you

17:02know, how does the cost drop? You know,

17:04we were using conventional construction

17:06originally and moved towards all

17:08pre-fabricated metal buildings um for

17:11the project um for the admin building.

17:14So, you know, even those prefab metal

17:17buildings, those costs have gone up as

17:19well. So we saved by going with that

17:22type of pre-engineered construction but

17:25yet even that as a building block has

17:28increased in cost. So um so again to be

17:31clear the admin building is not you know

17:35fully stick built from the ground up. It

17:37is it is built with a pre-engineered

17:38system. Um very typical for lots of DPW

17:43facilities and other municipal utility

17:46facilities these days. that that would

17:48be the uh framework framework of that

17:50building. So, we'd be looking at

17:52construction through the majority of

17:542028

17:56um with a close out and turnover in the

17:58beginning the beginning of 29.

18:02Now, I'll turn it over to you for

18:04questions.

18:04>> Questions?

18:05>> You didn't Sorry. Go ahead.

18:06>> Go ahead. Go ahead.

18:07>> So, you didn't mention about the seaw

18:08water bes

18:10can see what will do with the sea and

18:13water building. Um, so the the the water

18:17building would come down. Like that's

18:19that building goes, the existing garage

18:22stays of the two buildings. I think it's

18:24pretty clear that the garage is in

18:26better shape than the than the water

18:28department building. So um so yeah, that

18:31and we would need to get rid of that to

18:32build the to build the new the new

18:34admin.

18:35>> And what are the like connection between

18:37the admin admin and the DPW? They're

18:40going to connect no connection. So, as

18:43you can see right here, just as the um

18:46in the last presentation, they would be

18:48two separate buildings. They would

18:49remain two separate buildings. Um the

18:52front left, that's the recycling center.

18:55The new building is at the top of the

18:57top of the picture with the the black

19:00that's highlighted is aprons, right? Um

19:02outside of the building. Similarly, the

19:05existing U garage, which is the red

19:08rectangle, that is what stay would stay.

19:11Obviously the design HKT really this

19:14happened in the last as Keith said in

19:16the last seven days. We've done a all of

19:18this kind of back and forth. So the site

19:21hasn't been you know finalized yet. This

19:24is still very even it's less than

19:27schematic right now really. the the new

19:30admin building is in good shape

19:31schematic wise, but the site would needs

19:34a you know needs another look at um a

19:38hard look at to see about traffic flow

19:40and parking and all of those things

19:42which you know had been set into a new

19:44had been moving forward in a new design

19:46which now um isn't you know we would

19:50suggest isn't on the table at this time

19:52>> and if I would suggest too right so

19:56reducing it to the one building work

19:58still needs all of our program needs.

20:00Like we still have the administrative

20:02space to move all of our staff there. Um

20:05we still will have the new fleet

20:07maintenance area. Um then shops for all

20:09of the individual departments in that

20:11administration building. We still have

20:12our large um conference area that we can

20:17still use for voting. U those sort of

20:19things. So, very little has changed on

20:21the administration building um

20:25uh since the last uh presentation other

20:29than some of the PE items that we've

20:30changed like originally the whole

20:32building was air conditioned. Uh we

20:34removed the air conditioning from the

20:36entire um shop and fleet maintenance

20:39area. That's a half a million dollar

20:41savings that was in the VE items. Um so

20:45that was one I one piece and that

20:46literally you know we would um we we

20:50feel that the current DPW building

20:53although it's you know 50 years old we

20:56we still believe it's um in good enough

20:59condition that we can continue to use

21:00that for cold for cold storage. Um it

21:03has a lot of good equipment in it. So, a

21:05lot of the equipment and fixtures like

21:07the truck lifts, compressors, things

21:09like that, we can relocate to um the

21:12administration building or the new

21:14building, which is why we also reduce

21:16the FFN for some of the

21:18>> [snorts]

21:18>> um equipment and and in throughout the

21:21budget. So, a lot of stuff we've talked

21:23through. um it still meets our program

21:26you know it's not all new but we also I

21:28also think or we think that [snorts] um

21:31it's you know closer to a number that

21:34the community can u get behind us on

21:38>> so what is actually you change like when

21:40you came in the July June or July that

21:43time

21:44>> and that time like you came the the same

21:46size what is the that size of this

21:48building right now so what actually we

21:50are g gaining what we are basically

21:53missing Yeah.

21:54>> So, great question. So, the admin

21:56building remains at

22:00uh the new admin building remains at

22:0229,325

22:05square ft and the

22:10uh

22:12existing DPW garage is 32,085.

22:20So that difference compared to the two

22:23new buildings is a to it's a total

22:25difference of when we came here before

22:28it was 64,633

22:31and now we're down to 61,410.

22:38So we've lost 3200 square ft in program

22:42size,

22:44but the admin building remains the same.

22:47The loss is in the the difference

22:49between the red rectangle and the

22:51square, right? So that you you've lost

22:53that square footage in what would have

22:54been a new garage that would have been

22:563,000 square feet bigger.

23:01>> And optimized for vehicle

23:03[clears throat] storage,

23:04>> right? Right. Your existing garage isn't

23:07optimized. you're going to, you know,

23:09whereas the new garage you would pull in

23:11and have nicely aligned spaces, it's

23:13going to be more, hey, move this in,

23:15move this out. We don't need this piece

23:18of equipment, bury it in the back.

23:19Right? There'll be more um hopscotching

23:22that the staff will have to do to make

23:24that to make the existing building work

23:26for indoor storage.

23:28>> Is there room for all the vehicles?

23:31>> No. No.

23:32>> No. Um, we'll we'll be we we will be

23:35close, but the way the the way the

23:37highway garage is configured now. Um,

23:40there would definitely be some jockeying

23:42to get um all the equipment in there, I

23:45don't think we could. um we would have

23:48to live with some equipment probably

23:50being outside and maybe that would be

23:52something that we use less or older

23:54equipment um or not emergency vehicles

23:58that we

23:59>> Mhm.

23:59>> you know

24:00>> and with with that is there is there a

24:03plan to remove the office areas to

24:05increase the storage?

24:07>> Well, we could only do that with if

24:09funds allowed throughout the project. So

24:11if we if we

24:14came into bid savings then and and we

24:17could have I think our first priority

24:19for that building would be put a roof on

24:20it.

24:21>> Um and then if there was any

24:23opportunities to remove a wall here or

24:25there then we would consider that but um

24:28at this time that's not on the table.

24:31>> Okay.

24:33The hope I think is that with the moving

24:35forward

24:37as we you know with if the citizenry

24:40says yeah go for it is that in the time

24:43that this thing is designed

24:45>> hopefully you know gas doesn't stay

24:48diesel doesn't like the reality is is

24:50that you've got a bunch of site work

24:52site work runs on diesel everything that

24:54gets shipped here comes on diesel

24:55anything plastic has petroleum in it so

24:58you're really seeing a bit of a a bump

25:01right now you

25:02um you know construction costs and

25:05tariffs, you know, who knows what's

25:07going to happen with those, but the

25:08market is reflecting those right now. So

25:11if you say how much the it's really hard

25:13to pull that apart, right? Because you

25:16don't have a completed design right now.

25:18When these guys go to market, they're

25:19going to market with a square footage.

25:21Yeah. And an idea, right? And someone is

25:23saying, "Okay, if you can't show me more

25:25much more than an idea, here's my

25:28price." Right. So, you know, I feel good

25:31that we have a CM because we're not

25:33doing this with a third party estimator.

25:35We're doing this with people who are

25:36picking up the phone and doing this

25:37every day. But even those prefab metal

25:40buildings, these guys are building with

25:42those right now for EastN's DPW and

25:45they're talking to that vendor and it's

25:46that vendor that's giving them the

25:47pricing.

25:48>> And that vendor is saying, "No, those

25:50prices you bought that ad have gone have

25:53gone up."

25:54>> So, any we can't speak to what will go

25:56up and what will come down, right? We

25:58just can speak to this [clears throat]

25:59is where we are right now. And if we

26:01hold those numbers and say nothing else

26:03changes, we take those numbers and we

26:06escalate those up to okay a year from

26:08now when we bid and somebody holding

26:11that number through halfway through

26:12construction. And so that's what

26:14Fontaine has covered in these numbers.

26:16>> Okay.

26:17>> Very good. So there any probability to

26:20reduce the so cost because you don't

26:22know like after 6 months after the

26:24election like D the price can go down

26:26all those [clears throat] it c there

26:29certainly could be changes and listen we

26:31would all hope that there would be right

26:33could also go the other way right so I

26:35think the idea is to give if the if the

26:39committee supports it to give Keith

26:41enough information to say look we looked

26:43at this thing now four different ways

26:46this is clearly the most cost it's it's

26:49the most cost-effective solution to deal

26:52with fleet maintenance to deal with

26:54administration

26:56but we won't you know the reality is is

26:58because of the funding that was left

27:00there's not much more work this group

27:01can do between now and town meeting you

27:05know can they do can we look at taking

27:07the design and you know a little bit

27:09more sight to understand you know how

27:12traffic flows and things like that sure

27:14but at the end of the day we've gotten

27:17kind of to we're almost as far as we can

27:19go. Maybe there's a little more we can

27:21do if there's any remaining funds but

27:23not enough to advance the design far

27:25enough to say,

27:28you know, here this is a significant

27:30change that could drop this number. I

27:32think we've cut the program that we can

27:34at this point by going with the existing

27:37building. Um, as you can see the design

27:40from HKT, it's a pretty simple rectangle

27:44at this point. you know, one little bump

27:46out on one end. Um,

27:49you know, I can't I don't know if you

27:51guys any any thoughts on it's a pretty

27:54utilitarian kind of approach at this

27:56point.

27:57>> Yeah, it's pretty um pretty simple

27:59layout for as far as the admin and um

28:02but we would challenge that too to the

28:04next next level as we're going through

28:06things. Is there pushes and pulls that

28:08can make it even more cost effective?

28:11I guess yeah to that end right we would

28:13continue with an approved project it's

28:17still the goal of this I believe this

28:19committee to do it as cost-effectively

28:21as possible right so if we you know if

28:24this if the town says yes you would then

28:27do another estimate when that SD design

28:30gets design development and you might

28:32even do one more design as that design

28:34development set gets to construction

28:36documents so another two stopping points

28:38in that subsequent

28:42[snorts] seven to nine months after town

28:45meeting to say, "Okay, are we still are

28:47we holding? Are we holding?" And if

28:48we're saving, hey, great. Like, that's

28:50that's great news. And that's just money

28:52you don't have to borrow. This approach

28:54here for this project now is much more

28:56like what you would have to do for an

28:58MSBA school project. it is asking for a

29:01commitment to the number when it's just

29:04at SD and then having to live within

29:06that number for the next, you know, for

29:09the next year of design and the actual

29:11bidding and then for the year year and a

29:13half of construction. You know, when

29:15you're doing that with MSBA, you're

29:16committing for a school number for the

29:18coming four to five years, right? So,

29:20it's it's really the same approach um

29:23based [clears throat] on the the cards

29:25we're dealt right now and the funds

29:26available and where we are and and town

29:29meeting timing.

29:31>> So, with this new proposal of just

29:34keeping the old DPW building, where's I

29:37think I recall fleet going to the very

29:40right side or eastern side of the new

29:42building.

29:42>> Yeah, correct.

29:43>> So, does fleet remain in the

29:45>> fleet will still going to be moved?

29:46still move

29:47>> and there'll be extra space for

29:49>> correct

29:50garages there like those three bays.

29:52>> Okay. um there and I think you know the

29:55the

29:56like I said that building is a

29:58pre-engineered building and if like I

29:59said if there's savings you know um in

30:03the future you know maybe there's an

30:04opportunity to take a wall down and

30:06>> yeah one or two walls in those areas

30:09>> and look and I think we can certainly

30:10come back to you all with you know after

30:15the elections and in the spring as we're

30:17getting you know it's not like we're not

30:19going to talk to you between now and

30:20town meeting right if if we're seeing

30:22things in the market, you know, that's

30:24why we have a CM on board to say, hey,

30:26guess what? We have started to see some

30:28relief in the pricing for such and such.

30:31But for the discussions that need to

30:33take place now to get this on the, you

30:35know, to get this on the warrant or

30:39consideration for a warrant, these are

30:41the numbers we're at. But that doesn't

30:43mean that that couldn't shift between

30:46now and, you know, now and coming up to

30:48town meeting. So which one you are

30:50suggesting the construction code cost

30:52can reduce or like sub cost can reduce

30:56which are talking about the entire

30:58construction cost will be bid out like

31:01to subcontractors

31:03a year and a half from now or two years

31:05from now. So none of those construction

31:07costs are committed to any contractors.

31:09They're just our current estimate based

31:11on market conditions of what we believe

31:13the cost will be based on input. But

31:15each one of the subtrades bid will bring

31:18the bids to the you know the group and

31:20we'll choose the lowest responsible

31:22biders. So that whole number gets

31:23assembled as the design gets progressed

31:26so that the biders can give their most

31:28competitive pricing based on the

31:29finalized design. So all those costs are

31:32able to you know basically be at market

31:36at the time that we're able to buy them.

31:39>> Okay. So the design at this point like

31:42the the idea you came with those two

31:45building looking good but still the

31:48price wise little higher side. So as I

31:51think

31:53>> yeah at this point you're cutting square

31:54footage. So if you if the price needs to

31:57come down you're taking away bays or

31:59you're taking away office space and

32:01there's people who can't be in that

32:02building. So this committee needs to

32:04make a recommendation based on

32:07you know the market the pricing is where

32:10it is right now and yeah it's reflecting

32:12some stressors on the market right now.

32:15Um

32:16the only way to make that number go

32:18lower

32:19>> the space what you both side like how

32:21much you can help in the soft cost or

32:23construction code

32:25>> if because you guys getting the project

32:27so well again the soft costs at this

32:30point are just it's a factor right now

32:32it's it's 25%

32:33>> I wouldn't go lower at this point I'm

32:34not going to go lower than 25% and

32:36that's not me that's just if if me is an

32:38OPM to you a job at this point I would

32:41not in the end do costs end up coming in

32:44around. Could they come in at 22 or 23%.

32:48Sure. I'm not going to cut it to 22 or

32:5023% now because we don't know in that

32:53number, as an example, is 4% for

32:55equipment. The cost of, as an example,

32:58anything we need that's a computer right

33:00now. I just authorized a server at a

33:03town on the Southshore that a year and a

33:06half ago was 50,000. It was $125,000

33:10to buy that server. So those decisions

33:13about what else is in the building were

33:16not far enough yet, right? So to be able

33:19to say, "Yeah, look, I can think those

33:21soft costs can come in at 24%." Right?

33:24None of that is bought. That includes

33:26their fees, our fees, our fees are tied

33:29to duration, you know, okay, we think we

33:31know what the duration is, FFNE, and

33:33also then contingency, right? uh that

33:35money that if you need it, you know, you

33:39know, you you have it there to spend.

33:41The last thing I want to do before we

33:43even have a project that's approved is

33:46to say, okay, we can carry a 4%

33:48contingency because that 1% it's real

33:52money. So, you know, I think the the

33:55committee has to know that the team is

33:57committed to, you know, look at we've

34:01seen this go from a se 60s something,000

34:04square foot all all new program down to

34:0829,000 square feet, you know, and if if

34:12we can do it more cost-effectively,

34:15you know, we're going to do it. And

34:16that's what, you know, to Shane's point,

34:18we continue to test and ask questions

34:21right along the way to see if we're

34:22doing it as as economically as possible.

34:25But for right now, you know, that number

34:28is at at 31.2 million. If you wanted to

34:31round it to 31, that's it. I can't I

34:35can't suggest anything

34:38rounder or more than that because we're

34:40just we don't have enough detail to base

34:43it on yet. We're just throwing darts,

34:45you know, we're just throwing darts at

34:47things otherwise. So, you know, if 31

34:50>> Do you want to speak to like the makeup?

34:52You know, the vast majority of the

34:53number obviously is in the construction

34:55side of things. Shane and Ryan are

34:57deeply involved in how we put it

34:59together and

35:00>> our our fees as the builder like within

35:03that number are essentially fixed. Like

35:05we have percentages for our insurance,

35:07our fees. So talk about how the number

35:08is constructed and how we'll make sure

35:10that that number ultimately is as

35:12competitive as it can be.

35:14>> Yeah. So I when based on the original

35:17design, we went out to market and got

35:18feedback from subcontractors based on

35:21what they're seeing for pricing on all

35:23of this stuff. That's fed into the

35:24direct costs that we that we have.

35:28Also built into that construction cost

35:30um is a 10% design contingency which at

35:33the stage of the project right now

35:35there's a lot to be worked through those

35:36details um as well as a 6 and a half%

35:39escalation

35:41um from now till um the project start or

35:44halfway through construction um looking

35:47at it as a 4 and a half% escalation um

35:50you're over

35:52um

35:54>> so if the escalation if the market

35:56conditions improve

35:57>> Yep. you know that number will happen.

35:59>> The important thing to understand with

36:01the way that this contract will be

36:03procured is we're essentially acting as

36:05like your agent to procure all those

36:07subtrades. So the negotiations with the

36:10subs of, you know, hey, three concrete

36:12bids and how do we make sure we get the

36:14best one and can we get a best and final

36:16to get some savings like those would all

36:18happen post vote and we'd essentially be

36:21you know conducting those transparently

36:24on behalf of the town to drive down

36:26costs as much as possible will work. No,

36:28I understand because all of you are

36:30working for a long time with us and uh

36:33you can see if you get you getting this

36:35project you are going to for two years

36:37like how many year going to complete?

36:38Two year almost two year right?

36:40>> Mhm.

36:40>> Yeah. It's it's it'll be

36:41>> two year you are getting the two years.

36:43Yeah. Project getting the job

36:45everywhere. So we have to come up with

36:48some right number so that way we can

36:51work it and

36:52>> down also this way if you reduce the

36:54good price whatever that you can do it.

36:57M

36:58>> uh that way you can get the project that

36:59why it will go in the there in the town

37:01meeting it pass and then go to the town

37:04resident they will say no

37:06>> and I we don't want to second time to

37:08happen like that

37:09>> so you guys to help us to get a good

37:13amount number so that way we can easily

37:15say and we can say residents this is the

37:17right number and this is the size we are

37:19getting and u some you know sometime you

37:23are not getting the bigger number but

37:25you still getting the some profit or

37:26some because All of you I know working

37:28I'm a businessman too. I understand

37:30without proper no one work but uh still

37:33uh

37:35think like this way.

37:36>> Oh we totally are

37:37>> because otherwise at the last time if

37:39you have good number something you will

37:41get the project and now you have to

37:43complete it%.

37:44>> I think it's important to note too that

37:46what

37:47>> that the number that

37:50>> go sorry

37:53>> no I'm sorry John.

37:54>> No it's okay. No no no. So looking at

37:56the blue down below, I think it's

37:58important to note that the you know

38:00something like contingency what we're

38:03again we are asking for you know what

38:05the MFA will ultimately be asking for

38:08the select board is to support a warrant

38:10article that goes in and says this is

38:14the most we will spend. You aren't

38:16committing to spending that right now.

38:18you are committing to spending

38:22um you know again an a you know an

38:25amendment for these guys for

38:26pre-construction an amendment to get

38:28started for to to develop the design for

38:31us to walk that through you're not to

38:33Dave's point you're not buying

38:34construction for a year from now and

38:36when we do hopefully the market

38:38conditions will improve and if they

38:40haven't in that year we will have had

38:42many meetings in this room to figure out

38:45okay what are the relief valves you know

38:48that we can do to help to help drop that

38:51drop that price. Um I think you know to

38:55the earlier comments like at this point

38:58you've really you've driven that program

39:01down to a point where below this you are

39:05now not you're already not getting some

39:07storage. Keith can work with the storage

39:10and the team can work with the storage.

39:12If you go below the 29,000 you're really

39:15starting to car stuff up. I think that

39:18what we what we hope is that we see some

39:21relief in the marketplace. We see the

39:24pricing of prefab metal buildings coming

39:26down. To your point, we could start

39:28seeing changes as early as next week,

39:31depending on what happens election wise.

39:33Who knows, right? So far, all the tariff

39:35stuff that we've talked about for years,

39:39we haven't paid one on a job yet, right?

39:41That doesn't mean it won't eventually

39:43they won't start to stick but the market

39:46is reflecting that those are there right

39:47now and you know we have to we have to

39:51share th that with you and you know

39:53acknowledge [clears throat] that it's

39:54part it's part of the job. I mean we all

39:57expected I think to see pricing that

40:00would have been lower than this and in

40:02the last few months it has really it's

40:05really taken a turn in the wrong

40:06direction for right now. Doesn't mean it

40:08can't go back the other way but I mean

40:10and I don't know if Yeah, I just wanted

40:12to say, you know, Anad, like I I don't

40:14disagree with you, right? Like we we we

40:16worked really hard to make sure that

40:18what we're bringing to the residents is

40:20the best value for the project. Um like

40:24I can't stress enough how much work

40:26these people have put in for us to get

40:28there. Um, but also to your point, like

40:32I don't we we don't want to bring them a

40:34low number just to bring them a low

40:35number and then not be able to do the

40:37project because if you recall that is

40:39somewhat what happened the first time

40:41around, right? We came in with an

40:43estimate that was low and then it turned

40:44then we brought our construction manager

40:45on and said no no no this is the real

40:47number and that didn't work well at all.

40:50So, we worked really hard to try to to

40:54really dive in and make sure that we're

40:56giving the community the best we could

40:58possibly get because we don't want we

41:00certainly DPW certainly does not want

41:01this to fail and I know this committee

41:03doesn't want it to fail either. Um, but

41:05I think it it would be [clears throat]

41:06very hard for us to go in front of the

41:09board or in front of the town and

41:12[clears throat]

41:13and and say we'll get you a lower

41:15number. Um, but I am also confident that

41:18this team, if it does move forward, is

41:20going to work really hard to make to to

41:23to help us with that. And Fontaine has

41:26done that for us on the past at least

41:29the past three projects that they've

41:30worked on with us between the library,

41:33be school, and the police station. Um,

41:36they they've always um done a good job

41:38for us and, you know, we've had

41:41significant return on our money to the

41:43point where we didn't have to borrow. So

41:45that's why I'm saying that we have a

41:46pretty good relation being the so many

41:48project and the future project also

41:49coming.

41:50>> Uh but sometime you know one project you

41:53are not getting but you definitely have

41:55other project where you have more

41:56chances to because your reputation your

41:59work your quality your connection which

42:01you are building with us. Mhm.

42:03>> So on that basis still I'm saying like

42:06there some number is little high uh

42:08maybe you can reduce some uh

42:12[clears throat]

42:12>> yeah I in us putting this number

42:14together

42:17the like the fontine control portions of

42:20this um were essentially like procured

42:24in a competitive environment when we

42:26went through the process in the first

42:27place. I don't recall where the fe

42:28proposals were, but I believe we're, you

42:30know, competitive. We're less than than

42:32others in the market. And I think that

42:36um we also can control and I think that

42:39we've reduced our our staffing

42:41associated with this by bringing the

42:43duration down. So there have been

42:45savings that are baked into this number.

42:47Um and absolutely and from our

42:49perspective you know town's been an

42:50awesome partner for us and we recognize

42:52that the only way you know that this

42:55project moves forward and becomes a

42:56project for us that we generate any fee

42:59on is if it's you know able to be

43:01supported successful and when we're

43:03presenting this number it will all be

43:05shaken out and procured later the

43:07contingency will be well managed we

43:09return money at the end of each of these

43:10projects in town and I think to Keith's

43:13point what we want to make sure we

43:15balance is being able to deliver a

43:18number that's going to be the most

43:20competitive so that the the boat can

43:23find support

43:24>> while also making sure that we're

43:26careful that it's a number that with

43:28everything going on in the world we feel

43:30two 3 years from now the project will be

43:32able to be complete within because all

43:34that procurement that needs to happen

43:36for all the subtrades is obviously

43:38outside of our ability to pinpoint and

43:40lock people in right now. Um but we

43:43absolutely you know want to be good

43:44partners to the town and are happy to

43:47you know but we reduce

43:48>> yeah look at one more time like the

43:49number

43:50>> then everything looks good to me all of

43:53us are like we are okay with that but

43:55look at the number one more time

43:57whatever you can uh do on the certain

43:59extent

44:00>> definitely help for town and you will

44:02get more project because you are

44:03building a good reputation people know

44:05that like sometime town doesn't have the

44:07good amount of the money and you are

44:10helping that situation

44:12Y.

44:14>> So from my perspective, what I see here

44:15is we started with a project that failed

44:18in 2025. It's now projected out to $46

44:21million. Through the diligence and the

44:24hard work of the working group and the

44:25committee, we were keeping virtually all

44:29of the programming in this project and

44:31we've reduced the cost by 30 to 33% from

44:3646 to $31 million.

44:39That's to me a good and that's to me a

44:42good number. And I think it would be

44:43shortsighted of this committee and the

44:46working team to go to the select board

44:50or the town meeting with a with a

44:53virtually madeup number that's lower

44:56just to say that it could be passed by

44:58the select board or brought to town

45:00meeting and then we can't deliver on it.

45:02To me, that makes no sense at all. So,

45:05I'm comfortable with the work that's

45:07been done this far, and I'd be happy to

45:09bring that $ 31.2 million forward.

45:13That's my opinion. We've got a, you

45:15know, a one-third reduction in cost with

45:18the same programming. That's not easy to

45:21do in today's world.

45:24>> But I understand, but they are going to

45:25look at one more time and then they can

45:27come up with

45:28>> they constantly look at the numbers.

45:30Listen, I will just tell you that the

45:32the value that we were all brought back

45:34at, we have spent well in excess of the

45:37value of what because of the

45:41relationship. I think

45:42>> he will look at something,

45:43>> right? But we haven't just to be clear,

45:44we haven't even

45:46>> the the point of what's next. We nobody

45:50is contracted for any of that yet. So,

45:52we will absolutely look at all of that.

45:54I'll be looking at their contract. I'll

45:56be looking at their contract. I'll be

45:57looking at our durations. Yes, we will

45:59do that. But we can't do that today to

46:02drop that 312 to a lower number because

46:06if I take it out a little bit of him, a

46:08little bit of her and a little bit of

46:10us, but then the FFN doubles, I'm going

46:13to be coming back to you and saying,

46:14"Well, we we changed the number to 30.5

46:17to do that tonight." But FFN just went

46:20through the roof. So understand that the

46:23the approach of doing this as a group as

46:26a 25% markup is to basically say there

46:30are multiple spokes in the wheel but

46:33we'll contribute to that that we won't

46:35really price until

46:38until May until May of after May of next

46:40year. Right? We'll we'll do more work on

46:43it.

46:43>> All right. And we will yes we will look

46:45at it. We understand our relationship,

46:47but please understand that these guys

46:49just in what they've done in the last

46:51week have done what we asked them to do

46:53once three times already. They've done

46:56three estimates for the price of one.

46:58And there nobody's complaining and

46:59nobody's asking for extra money. They've

47:01got three representatives here tonight.

47:04They are they are a partner of the town

47:07of Shrewsbury and and we'll you know we

47:09will and we will all continue to be.

47:10It's our second job with you. It's their

47:13fourth, fifth. It's a it's a it's a lot,

47:16right? So, we want to see this built. We

47:18don't we don't participate in these

47:20meetings to just get to town meeting and

47:22then have it blow up. We want to

47:24actually build you guys build you

47:26something to help solve problems. That's

47:28the part that we love doing. So, yes, we

47:31will absolutely continue to work on this

47:34and you know, you'll you'll you'll get

47:36our best our best deal. That's you know,

47:39I think that's I think that's pretty

47:40clear from from everyone at the table.

47:43So what would you like when we throw

47:45numbers up the public it gets in Yep. So

47:48is that a GM I saw in the in the

47:51narrative you have this number but then

47:53you say you're going to develop a GMP

47:55later on down the road. Yes. So what

47:57what is this number GMBB?

47:59>> No it's a great question. So if you look

48:00at the construction number right at 261

48:03and you take away the VE let's round

48:05that out at 25 million. Now right now

48:07you we would be looking at a GMP at 25

48:10million or less. Okay,

48:11>> that is the that's the goal here. That

48:13because that's what we're saying. If

48:15we're all telling you this is the number

48:17and we're committing to it, fast forward

48:19to a year and a half from now or even a

48:22little bit more, you would be or excuse

48:24me, a year from now, we'd be looking for

48:27a GMP from these guys at 25 or less

48:30because you will have committed to that

48:32number and the citizens will have voted

48:33it

48:34>> six months from now and then we have to

48:36live with it,

48:37>> you know, for the duration.

48:39>> I understand fully on board. I just want

48:40the public to understand

48:42>> that that that number um you you know

48:45that that this is this project is what

48:47I'm hearing is that won't exceed

48:49>> from this stat this number right here

48:52the GMP won't be higher than 31.

48:54>> Yeah. Look, I I mean what I would say

48:56though is that if 312 is the number,

48:58look, if suddenly the cost of steel went

49:01through the roof and you have to make a

49:02decision to do

49:04>> $400,000 less of furniture in the

49:07building and maybe reuse all the old

49:09stuff

49:10>> and their GMP goes up to 25.4 because

49:12that's what we need to do it,

49:14>> right? What we're saying is we're

49:16committing to that 312

49:19>> again. And those other things are all

49:21all up and down, but we will make the

49:23decisions to stay within that 312

49:26because we have to

49:27>> have to because we can't go back to the

49:28town meeting and go

49:31>> h kidding. We need 400,000 more. Like we

49:33know that's the we we do not do that. We

49:37we [clears throat]

49:38>> that is the

49:39>> that never

49:41>> doesn't work.

49:42>> It doesn't work. So we don't do it. It's

49:43not even in our

49:45>> in our brain. Yeah. I think at that

49:46point if something like that were to

49:48happen, that's where we'd utilize the we

49:50we'd decide what we wanted to do and

49:52possibly use the

49:53>> the owners the owner's contingency.

49:55>> Yes.

49:56>> Um and you you kind of

49:59>> Yeah. No, it's a great it's a great

50:00point. And listen, we we also too

50:03realize that, you know, this was a

50:05deadline to get Keith to appoint to get

50:08this committee to a point to make a

50:10recommendation. There can be certainly

50:12other public meetings, information

50:15sessions to the select board where we

50:17don't just show you one blue box. We

50:19show you kind of a breakout of here's

50:22how it's built. Here's what a GMP is

50:24kind of

50:25>> ed a little more education about where

50:27we're going. Um but this is the you know

50:31this is where we are right now today. Um

50:34and hopefully it's you know enough

50:37information to um to make a decision and

50:40again pursue it like you would pursue

50:43you know the high this is essentially

50:45the way you would do the high school

50:46project

50:48>> and I just had a couple of questions on

50:49the value engineer.

50:50>> Absolutely.

50:51>> Um just to make sure that we're not

50:53removing something that's you know that

50:56doesn't make sense to remove for

50:57instance the one that grabbed me was the

50:59fuel station canopy. Can you explain

51:01what that is? That to protect people

51:03from when they're

51:04>> That's that's actually I saw it

51:05deferred.

51:06>> That was an idea.

51:07>> So that's no longer talked about.

51:10>> We would like to have that in.

51:11>> Just saw deferred and I wanted to know

51:12what that meant.

51:13>> That was on a list that we all agreed

51:16we'd like to keep that one in for now.

51:18And that that could be another lever of

51:20>> Yeah. The other ones are in there.

51:21That's right.

51:21>> And and the masonry backup wall. Is that

51:23was that the connector? Is that the wall

51:25that was we were going to put on or what

51:27is that that to be determined evaluated

51:29or

51:30>> that's around the new admin building.

51:32It's kind of right right now the um

51:34details are showing a masonry backup

51:37wall. We think we could investigate that

51:39more to potentially extend the

51:41foundation wall.

51:42>> Um but there's a little bit more

51:43studying of the um energy modeling to

51:46make sure that that would work. But we

51:48think that that could be an additional

51:50value engineering that we would pursue.

51:52>> Yeah. I mean the downsizing of the

51:54generator that makes sense because if

51:55you don't need it you don't need it. Um

51:58but the brine tank what does that mean

52:00Keith is that

52:01>> so current currently inside um so we so

52:04we have a Brian programs

52:07>> um so that system lives inside the

52:10existing highway garage. Um, initially

52:14when we worked through this new

52:16conceptual plan, we were going to move

52:17that brine system well out next to the

52:21um, salt shed and create an enclosure

52:24for it there. Um, but since we're not

52:27going to rebuild a new building, build a

52:30new building for this that we would just

52:32leave the Brian system where it is.

52:33>> Weren't we going to add some capacity to

52:36it? Another tank?

52:37>> Um, we did that about two years ago.

52:39>> That was already done.

52:40>> That was already done. Yeah. So this is

52:41just this isn't removing our capability.

52:44It's just removing what we would need to

52:45build out.

52:46>> It's removing it from the new building.

52:47>> I'm good with that. Okay.

52:50>> Okay. That was all and just that you

52:52know the other one was the coding on the

52:54aprons just not that that's something

52:56things like that you if you can defer it

52:59if it if it's because you have to

53:00consider if it makes sense to doing

53:02doing it while you're doing

53:03construction,

53:04>> right?

53:04>> You know, things might cost more after.

53:06>> And so we talk about AP. We we did have

53:08that conversation specifically about

53:09moving that out, right? and and um you

53:14know we think we still we need we

53:16certainly think we need the concrete

53:17aprons in front of the fleet maintenance

53:19garage but we wouldn't necessarily need

53:20them at the wash bay or at the at the at

53:23the um shops in the back. Um, so it was

53:27that was kind that was just a

53:28>> and that's that value there was to keep

53:31them at fleet because we you know we

53:32discussed that originally maybe taking

53:34them all out but the need for definitely

53:37um keeping them at fleet maintenance.

53:39>> This was just to code them too. The HDMA

53:41is just a a coating on top, right? That

53:44wasn't a full pull out replacement, was

53:45it?

53:46>> Um no. So that that is referring to the

53:48there's a concrete apron in front of

53:51instead of it being um asphalt.

53:53>> Oh, it's by now. It's It's shown to be

53:55concrete. Yeah. Now,

53:57>> right. Right. I thought it was pushing.

53:59I was Can they add some

54:01>> to the current building?

54:02>> Yeah.

54:03>> So So we're not talking about the

54:04current building. We're actually talking

54:04about the administration building.

54:06>> Oh, okay. The new door.

54:07>> The new fleet garages would like

54:09originally there were concrete aprons at

54:10all the overhead doors for that building

54:12and we backed that off to just the fleet

54:14doors only. And then last one, uh, would

54:18FA would I assume this project be with

54:20the elimination of disruption to the DPW

54:23building would create less phasing? Did

54:25that factor into any of this value?

54:28>> It factored into their GC's that were

54:31added into the project, right? Because

54:33the phasing, extended duration, the

54:35duration got shorter. So when the

54:36duration got shorter, their portion of

54:38the of the markup got shorter because

54:41you're on the job for less months,

54:42right? So yes. So all of those things

54:45squeezed reflected into the total.

54:47>> Oh, I just didn't see it on the calendar

54:50memory, but I thought

54:51>> Yeah, the calendar was longer because

54:52then it was another like six or seven

54:55months then the close out. So the job

54:57the job did did shorten. The other thing

55:00too to remember about about um cost

55:03valves is that you know for something

55:05that like is on the VE list that you

55:09know

55:10maybe you really wish you don't want to

55:12ve something that you really might want

55:14later or or I say want need later we can

55:17do an alternate an add alternate right

55:19so as an example if this committee says

55:22you know what Keith I know you you know

55:24pretend we had taken the canopy out and

55:26you had said I really think you should

55:28have it well we could say, you know

55:29what, let's leave it out and then we can

55:31put a an ad alternate. So on bid day, we

55:34can see, yeah, we've been tracking it at

55:36100, but if the market says it's 50

55:38because okay, maybe we buy it, right? So

55:41similarly, if there are some things that

55:42if the number is looking tight, you

55:45know, we're going to have to identify

55:46possibly some deduct

55:48>> or we're going to have HKT take

55:50something out of the job and add it as

55:51an ad so that you know, you only do it

55:55if you have the money to do it, right?

55:57So again that's all that's months away

56:00but we will that is another cost um cost

56:04relief you know mechanism so we can you

56:08know make sure that we're staying at the

56:09number or lower right all the way

56:11across.

56:12>> You know there's nothing better than

56:14giving you good good uh good news on bid

56:17day but we also don't want to be so

56:19conservative that you take something out

56:22that you really need it that you really

56:24that really is part of this project.

56:26Right. So

56:28>> try to find try to find try to find that

56:30balance throughout the process for you

56:31guys.

56:32>> And again, this is exactly why we do

56:34this process, the construction manager

56:37at risk format,

56:38>> because it it it gets rid of those

56:40variables where if if there are sudden

56:43cost overruns and again I always go back

56:45to the Doerty High project. The day they

56:48crack around on that, it was $30 million

56:51over budget

56:52>> that they didn't foresee. And that was a

56:54design fit and build project.

56:57>> So I think we're heading in the right

57:00direction.

57:01>> They're in the room. [laughter]

57:05>> This is where you say don't do that.

57:07>> I'm not saying it was there. I'm not I'm

57:08not laying fault. I think the fault is

57:10in the process, right? Like that this

57:13before we've bought anything, before

57:14we've committed any of these costs,

57:16right? We're giving, you know, the

57:18chance to change the program, realign,

57:20think through all those things, but

57:22we're also able to bring feedback from

57:24the market. Right.

57:25>> Right. And, you know, it's also a number

57:27with our relationship in town and our

57:29history in town that each of the

57:31projects that we've done, the number

57:32that we've,

57:33>> you know, put forward as part of the

57:35committee has ultimately been a number

57:37that we've been able to deliver the

57:38projects inside of. So we are

57:40incentivized like to keep the

57:41relationship to deliver reliable numbers

57:43and to you know then deliver savings as

57:46we go through the project.

57:48>> I was blaming the city for picking them

57:50up process. [laughter]

57:53>> The architect's not going to either. So

57:59>> so when you're going to like as you

58:00mentioned like when you're going to send

58:02this one you have to remove 266 as you

58:05mentioned nowaday and then later you're

58:08going to work on that.

58:09We will all the way through.

58:11>> Listen, the the decision is up to the

58:12committee, right? If you if you take

58:14that out, you're just taking money out

58:16of your contingency right now. But if

58:17the committee feels a number a round

58:19number of 31 million is better than

58:2131.2, that's your decision.

58:24>> You mentioned like, I can take off this

58:26amount.

58:26>> No, no, no. I'm not saying my No, no.

58:28I'm saying if you want to reduce that

58:30from the budget, we can find that. I I

58:33haven't calculated my fee for this job

58:34and I my boss would kill me if he told

58:36me to take $200,000 out of our fee. I'm

58:40just saying from a budget standpoint, we

58:42can get to a round number if that is an

58:44easier number to talk about. I don't

58:46know what our budget is for this job

58:48yet, but it's Yeah, I'm I No, I'm just

58:52saying from an overall standpoint, if

58:54you need that number to be a round

58:56number, fine. Make the soft cost 0.245%.

59:01It's Yeah, it's it's

59:04Yeah, we we we are not at the point of

59:08negotiating amendments to contracts for

59:11jobs that aren't approved yet. We can't

59:13we can't do that. So,

59:20anything else?

59:22>> To vote if that's the next agenda.

59:26>> That brings us that moves us forward to

59:28item number eight. discuss the meeting

59:30schedule and potential select board

59:32presentation in November.

59:35>> Are we so

59:37>> at that point?

59:38>> We are not. So I have we have a meeting

59:40with the select board on uh Monday

59:43evening. It's a workshop. Um we're

59:45discussing this project along with um

59:49future financial obligations u financial

59:52modeling um and [clears throat] be part

59:54of that and uh my hope is come out of

59:56that meeting with a um decision on the

1:00:00from the board on what they want our

1:00:04next steps to be which could be uh

1:00:06presentation to them um or something

1:00:10different.

1:00:12And at that point that now would be the

1:00:14point when we would give our

1:00:16recommendation

1:00:18um

1:00:20our voters recommendation to move

1:00:22forward um also in public setting.

1:00:26>> Mhm.

1:00:27>> Patrick, do we need a a vote to bring

1:00:29this to the select board for the

1:00:30November meeting or

1:00:31>> um presented?

1:00:32>> We do not need a vote this evening um if

1:00:36we have a general agreement for me to

1:00:37present it as it's been presented. Yes.

1:00:39a workshop and then but prior to any

1:00:43public meeting with the select board to

1:00:46actually request something then we would

1:00:48come back as a

1:00:48>> right

1:00:49>> as a committee.

1:00:50>> Yep.

1:00:50>> Um to vote.

1:00:53>> So we're okay presenting it as it's

1:00:55>> I thought I saw that that we had to vote

1:00:56to send it to the

1:00:58>> good

1:00:58>> to check for but if not that's fine.

1:01:00>> Okay.

1:01:01>> They're presenting. Okay.

1:01:02>> Yeah.

1:01:03>> Yeah. Very good. So, gen generally

1:01:06speaking, we're getting the measure of

1:01:07this committee this evening. We'll get

1:01:08the measure of the select board.

1:01:10>> I appreciate all the work that was done.

1:01:12I know it was a lot. Um, and to get from

1:01:15where we were to where we are now, I

1:01:17think is phenomenal. So, thank you.

1:01:20>> I guess one, have we talked to the PPW

1:01:22staff? Have they been involved with

1:01:23this?

1:01:24>> Staff have been involved with this over

1:01:26the summer, I guess. Um, and they we've

1:01:30done some ton of ton of work as this

1:01:32team has over the past week, but I may

1:01:34I've had one-on- ones with most

1:01:36>> so they know about kind of so we know

1:01:38where we're at.

1:01:38>> Okay.

1:01:40>> Do you anticipate another meeting? Do

1:01:42you have an idea? [clears throat]

1:01:45>> So, I don't think we can set a date on a

1:01:46meeting now. Um, I would like to get

1:01:48through Monday evening and uh work with

1:01:51the board, understand what they want to

1:01:53do before schedule for public

1:01:54conversation.

1:01:55>> Okay. Very good.

1:01:58Any other business?

1:02:00>> None.

1:02:02>> There being none, do we have a motion to

1:02:04adjurnn?

1:02:05>> So moved.

1:02:06>> Second.

1:02:06>> We have a motion and a second to

1:02:07adjurnn. All those in favor signify by

1:02:09saying I. I. Thank you everybody. Thank

1:02:11you very much.

```*