Fire Station Building Committee - Regular Meeting

Noting the hour, I'll call the meeting of the fire station building committee to order. And because we are not all in the room, all the votes that we take tonight will be a roll call vote. We'll start with our attendance. Uh Mary Berlin here. Uh Priya Priya present. Allen present, Maria present, and Mac present. U do we have any input from the community either in the room or online? Remember that uh you may speak up to three minutes either before or after the meeting.

Okay. So, I don't see anyone online. Is there any community input in the room? No, I guess I guess we don't have any right now. No. Okay, new business. So, the fall town meeting recording in progress. Mac. Yes. Uh oh. I would like to share You know how Yeah. You know how Sarah's been doing the um updates of things we've been hearing over the past two weeks. Right.

I'd like to share it. Bear with me. It's a little bit long because we've had a lot of input. Um, so this is in response to what we've heard in the past two weeks from the fire station building committee meeting, our public information session, passing information out at the transfer station, and attending the fall festival. Um, the fire station building committee has about $100,000 in our budget that we expect to have unspent, even though some of it is encumbered money, which is committed money. 1300 Mass A. The site there has wetlands on both sides of the property to the west side and the far east side. We heard from the town and continued to hear from the town that cost was a determining factor for site selection, which is one of the several reasons why 72 Stow Road was selected by the fire station building committee and put forth at the Midtown meeting. The sense of the meeting article at the October Fallstown meeting will help the fire station building committee determine if the voters are willing to pay more for a fire station that is not at 72 Stow Road. It is a nonbinding decision and a chance for the fire station building committee to hear directly from the voters. Over 75% of the town of Boxboro is in the agricultural residential zone ADR with commercial and industrial areas predominantly along Mass A 111 and 495. Limited zoning for public safety would reduce the number of available sites for the fire station within Boxboro. The current fire station site 502 Massav is located in the agricultural residential zone. A special permit would require design documentation to be created and submitted. Design documentation would

mean that the town would spend more money on designing a space without certainty on the location of the building. The cost of the fire station has not been determined. The fire station building committee is currently in the conceptual phase which focuses on whether a building is feasible on a site. Further design, three more phases that take approximately one year to complete is required to determine the details of the building, reviewing costs at each phase, allowing us to present a final cost to build a fire station to the town. Although the fire station building committee will be costconscious throughout the design phases, the majority of efficiencies and cost reduction occurs in the second to last phase design development because the project will then be detailed enough to review and recommend the materials, means, and methods of construction. The traffic study that was conducted at 72 Stow Road showed no indication of traffic con congestion at the Masab Stow Road intersection even with a fire station located at 72 Stow Road. We are aware of the community's request for safer walking and biking on Stow Road. If the site is selected, we would like the opportunity to address this through the design of the landscaping and making recommendations to the select board to implement. We are also considering a light on Massav for any of the potential locations. The current fire station being right across from Blanchard Memorial Elementary School has traffic from school buses, parent pickup and drop off, and kids walking and biking to and from school. The firefighters currently encounter more traffic at their current location than any of the other proposed site locations. The fire station building committee has

heard that there are concerns about noise and light impacts. The fire station building committee is very committed to listening to mitigation ideas and will implement measures to reduce the impact of noise and light during construction and operations. These measures will be discussed during the future design phases. We had a tax rate table completed for the fall town meeting information session on September 29th which we have posted on our website. It shows that a bond interest rate of 4% starting in 2028 for a home that has an assessed value of $1 million. A $30 million construction cost would increase taxes for the milliondoll house by $934 a year. For a home that has an assessed value of $600,000, it would increase taxes for that home by $560 per year. The current concept design for 72 Stow Road appears to be feasible on 700 Mass and 1300 maths. The concept design contains the needed space that the firefighters require by code and based on the needs of the town. The concept design created for this site is similar um is excuse me is smaller than that designed for 502 math. The 502 math site conditions require a larger floor area to accommodate the same spaces contained within the 72 road building. The relocation cost for the temporary fire station facility was estimated by our owner's representative and is located in the project budget folder. The fire station building committee chose not to pay for a design of the temporary site as a comparable estimate was able to be obtained from the owner's

representative who was working on a similar project in Massachusetts. This cost estimate was further validated with public information for actual temporary fire station costs that are currently being utilized. The fire chief stated in a planning board meeting that a temporary emergency operations center can be created during an emergency situation. For example, during the pandemic, an emergency operations center was opened at the Regency because the fire department had no emergency operations center on site. And I'm going to pause here and ask the chief if he wants to make a comment on this. My only comment would be is that having to create an ad hoc a temporary emergency operations center, there's so many limitations to us having to do that on a regular basis that it's much more beneficial to the community and to the department if we had the integrated emergency operations center at the fire station where we can utilize all the resources that we currently have there such as our computer databases, our communications, our telephones, etc. So I just would say that even though that may be a possibility, it is not a benefit to the town at all. That the town would benefit greatly from having it integrated at the fire station.

Thank you. Um I have two more points from Sarah's list. Uh the fire station building committee has discussed at length the concerns of 502 massab site with within being within a wetland setback and a riverfront setback. The latest wetland survey for the site confirms that the wetlands have encroached further onto the site than when they were previously recorded. Additionally, the firefighters have stated that the water has encroached on the site as compared to previous years. The concept plan moves the fire station as far away from the wetland setback as possible. However, it still lies within the riverfront setback and within the 100year flood plane. Additionally, the concept design calls for bringing in 6 and 1/2 ft of fill to raise the lowest level of the fire station higher. And then finally, town hall has received a few questions regarding information in a flyer mailed by the town. That's what people thought. The fact is that the only thing mailed by the town to residents is the fall town meeting warrant. Anything else ma um mailed to residents was by a different group for their own purposes. Thank you.

Thank you, Mary. And uh thank you, Sarah, for uh writing that. That's very helpful this last few meetings we've had uh to be able to respond to things from the community. That's been helpful. Um I just would like to go through the four things from the that are coming up at the town meeting to see if anybody has any more comments about that. We know that article one is regarding uh if the if a public safety building can be built anywhere in town and we know that the planning board voted to support that 3 to2. Our committee voted six to six to nothing and the select board uh voted to recommend it 4 to one. Any other comments about that?

No.

Article two um is about being able to have a larger public facility uh in the U uh town center and that was uh recommended by the FINCOM 6 to nothing. The planning board deferred their recommendation. Our fire station building committee uh recommended that 60 and the select board deferred their recommendation. Any other comments about that? In article three, our sense of the meeting uh whether the voters will support to spend additional money to not have it at 72 road where we believe is the least expensive. Um and uh our fire station building committee uh recommended that six to nothing. The fincom does not support that and they voted 0 to six. The capital committee does not recommend that 0 to 5 and the select board made no recommendation at this time. In article four, the sense of the meeting about whether we want to have green construction that might cost that would cost about a million dollars more uh to make that happen. Our committee voted 7 to nothing to support that. The finance committee recommended it 4:2. The capital committee recommended at five to nothing and the select board recommended at five to nothing and the sustainability committee recommended at six to nothing. So there are it's not totally unanimous but any of these but um that's what we're going with.

Mary has Mary has her hand up. Yes, Mary. Um I would just note to the committee that I am working on presentations for articles three and four. um they're due to Kelly tomorrow at noon. Um so I I unfortunately didn't have them ready to share, but um I will be getting those in. And then I will also note that um we have a meeting scheduled for 6:15 at the Regency on the 14th in case there's anything else we want to vote related to that town meeting.

Good. Thank you. So the special town meeting that's coming up December 15th and 16th um at that time we expect that we will have an article that will propose u for the voters to vote to support the design and bid phase and uh we don't know that exact number right at this time but uh then we would assume that a year later we would be coming back to the town at a town meeting sometime within the next year to actually um secure the funds to build the firehouse. So in December, it will just be for the design and bid funds and perhaps we might be voting to asking uh voters to support the buying of some land uh where we believe will be the best place to have our firehouse. Any other comments about that?

Mary has her hand up again. Yes, Mary.

Yes. Yes. Yes. So we do I think when we present to town meeting for the design cost um and for the land um people are going to want to know the estimate of the build the building the actual construction um and so I think we need to talk about that. Um we had an estimate that was done previously that was the entire project. Um we've asked um Steve at Vertex to put together the budget and take out the land purchase and take out a few other things like the demolishing of 502 because that could happen not within this project and get to a budget that then we have to decide are we going to go in with that budget or are we going to go with a tight budget because we're hearing from the town that it needs to be a tight budget. So, I'm wondering um Steve if you could share that budget with us. Maybe share your screen and we can look through it and then um it would really help if tonight or um at the 16 our meeting on the 16th at the latest we decide a cost that we are going to like a budget that we're going to hold the project to. So this is the budget. Um it has the the math a 502 math a is column C and 72 still road is column E. It it's built around the construction costs that were um estimated on March

10th. Um and so you can see that cost for both buildings. And then it um goes through I don't know I I don't know if we want to go through this in detail. We've seen this but um Marian I can go through it. I can't see. Yeah. Why don't you just talk us through it generally so

Okay. Uh so basically what I did based on our conversations of just showing what the amount of the project would be uh when we get to to the construction stage. We have um as you can see 502 and 72 these are the these are the um uh the costs that were estimated in March 10th. Um, and I I've tried to highlight in yellow certain numbers that that I've adjusted uh because of um this original estimate was based on a different timeline. I've increased the escalation to match what I think we're going to be at this point. Um, I've taken out uh we had at 72 road we had been including the demolition of 502. Uh, I took that cost out. Um, the I'm sort of going to go back and forth because they sort of,

you know, there's there's parallels to both, but um, on on 502,

we had a a $3.8 million temporary uh, fire station uh, facility for the swing space. I just took an arbitrary million dollars off of that just to see um you know what the what the bottom line is. We don't have the information that's being pursued with with the regency uh yet. Um and we also have to consider that um you know what what the um uh what the temporary living quarters are going to be which for for the the dorms would be the the uh the hotel but we need um other spaces for admin for obviously for apparatus and equipment. So I know all that's being being worked on, but I I just I just did that so that we would have something and no one would say that. I wasn't discounting it. Um so we that here where we come down with and keeping the uh construction contingency at 5%. We including that um we're at a a hard cost of 328 for 50271. [Music] Um, if you want to if you want to take the contingency or not consider the contingency, our our numbers are 312 and 258 for the for the two buildings. And again, the square footage is the same uh as as it was before. Uh, 72 is 20,800 ft and 502 is 22,000. Um moving down to the soft cost. Uh I've taken the feasibility conceptual site selection uh uh fees and the uh the design fees for both context and vertex out. What I'm showing here is your construction administration and close out which would be during construction for both uh context and for uh vertex.

Um obviously ours goes higher in construction um because we have uh the clerk that works on the site full-time uh whereas during design we you know we have uh less staff input. Um moving down uh none of the the other soft costs um for you know FFNE fire equipment um construction materials testing didn't touch any of those yet because we need to carry we need to carry numbers until we get into design and at that point maybe we can get some better quotes on things but um I left all that alone. Um and we we ultimately get to a soft cost total which is inclusive of fees for design and OPM. Um you've got 3.7 for 72 4.3ish for 502. Um and then you you combine the combine the two. Uh we we we're keeping the 1% owners contingency. Uh we're down to uh 375 for 502 311 472 and we've we've taken off any any land acquisition costs also and and appropriations to date.

So thank you Steve. So um you know we're going to go into all of this. We're not going to have a detailed estimate like this on other sites. Um, and so no matter what site we go on, we need to go in with a budget. Um, and we're hearing from the community over 30 million is too high. Um, and so I'd like us to think about, you know, can we go before the town and say 28 million, 29 million? I don't know. I don't think we can get it to 24 million, but where can where are we willing to go um to to get support for this building?

Can I ask a question? Yes. So, I I have I have a question, Steve. um on the swing space where you took out a million dollars. Is that million if we end up at the Regency or do we have we revised that number down or is this just a guess? Because it it just it just it's completely arbitrary because we we just don't we don't have the information on uh the Regency at this point. Maybe maybe it could go down more. Don't know yet. But I wanted to I wanted to show something. Okay. But there should be some kind of savings if we were at the Regency. That's my that's my question.

Well, I I think he's being responsive to the community saying it that's way too high. And so he was just playing with it to see well what happens if you go down a million. But we it's not going to be a lot lower than that because there are real costs to swing space. Um I think the question for Mike is will we have the do we think we can get the regency's estimate by the 16th and then we could put in the that number. So

because the regency also eliminates the DPW aspect of of the swing space when we were going to the uh the old DPW site. Right. But

Right. So, Chief and I met with um with the asset uh manager at the Regency today. We had previously met and had conversations with the uh general manager as well as the director of sales. Uh that's Chief and I. Um so, they had more questions. We we did a a sitewalk uh through the outside area that we'd be looking to lease as well as the rooms and interior area that we'd be looking to uh rent or lease. Um so we we don't have any numbers yet. We did um tell them that we needed we really needed numbers um by you know by a week from today and we were hoping to have them actually earlier this week to talk about them tonight. U but there's a lot involved in it. There's there's um contractor costs that will come directly through us. There's rental costs that will come directly through us and then there's a lot of fees that would come to the town from the regency. So we're working on our end. They're working on their end. we have some of our fees already. Uh but you know, we we did tell them and you know, he's um he's meeting um in the next couple of days with the owner of the Regency to review this and find out first of all were they were they are they willing to do this um and and if so, at what cost? So I told them we really need this for next week's uh meeting by midday uh a week from today. Um, and I told them if if there was any hang-ups, could they at least give us a rough estimate so we can um, you know, I told them, you know, why we have these deadlines. So, they're working on that. Um, I will say that we have no indication yet um that we didn't tell them what our other swing space cost is, but you know, um, but there's no ind we have no indication whether it's going to be higher or lower or close to the same. We have no indication at all.

So, I guess that's my question. Why would we take a million dollars out of that swing space when we don't have an indication? We take it out if we if we know that it could be less. But right now, you just said we don't know if we can be there and we don't have an indication if it's the same, higher or lower, it I get nervous about putting numbers out there and then even if we know it's a draft, right, but then having to go back and increase it. So I would rather keep that number higher until we hear from the regency and we know what that number where we land on that number because that feeds into the bottom line. If we can save a million dollars that's awesome, right?

But we don't know that we can save a million dollars. And I don't think it's a good idea to put estimates lower estimates. I think we need to be conservative and be realistic with the public so that we don't go back and have to add a million dollars. Yeah, I do agree with Steve that there is um some some savings. don't know what that number is because we're not moving two departments, we're just moving one. Uh but I we don't know what that number is and and Steve did qualify it with, you know, this is arbitrary to see what happens to the bottom line number if he just moves, you know, some number on the but I understand what I know, but like you don't even know that we can do it yet. So this it there will be some savings whatever that savings is. Yes. You know, but we're not even sure we can do it yet.

We can put that Yeah. So we can put that back up to the three million and change. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It's not a problem. And then hope hopefully we can, you know, have that estimate from the regency by our next by our meeting on the 16th. Okay. Thank you. Steve, did you have something else? Uh, no. I just said that that's fine. We can I can make that change and put put the uh put the number back. So Mary, when do you want us to come up with this number that you you know that you're thinking because

you know do you are you thinking about that for next for the 16th? I I think it would be I think it would be good if we could put it in our explanation in the warrant and I I am not entirely sure of the dates if we have to do that by the 16th or um a week later by the 23rd but in that time frame. So, uh, we know that that six mill, excuse me, $6 million number is scaring people and people will think that all the other sites will even though it says up to 6 million, I think that people are thinking, well, I I don't want to pay an extra 6 million. So I I think it's worth

wait what what six million are you talking about for for uh anything beyond 72 road for for the sense of the meeting that says up to 6 million. Okay. Cuz that's right. No, I understand that. But that's not in the budget we were looking at. No, I know. I'm I was going back to that just to say that. Okay. I I would I would consider taking a million off that just to make it more reasonable and and uh but based in reality though it it has to be based on something that's going to give us an indication. I I understand that the public doesn't like that number

but it it we have to be transparent. We can't just take it off to calm the public if we actually need the money. Well, as you know though, uh our committee did not vote to do that study. If we'd have done that study, we would know exactly what it is, but we voted not to do that. So, and we're doing it and we're doing it now and we'll have it for our next meeting,

right? So, we'll we'll talk about that. And but my larger my larger question is even if we look at the 72 still road number and let's just assume for now that the other two math a sites could be somewhat similar in cost to that. What kind of budget if we I feel like we have to go in with a budget for the design phase. What budget would you want to be setting it at? What would you feel comfortable setting it at? Hand up.

Right. And that that's a difficult thing because that number will not be based on really hard evidence. We're going to have to say what we believe the community uh will vote for and and uh ask the designers to design to that number. Um and that's that our our listening group has been talking about that for all three meetings and um I find that a difficult thing but I I think we have to do that. Uh Priya has her hand. Korea.

Yeah. Um I mean my concern is that again it shouldn't be arbitrary, right? Like and like on the one hand we are saying we have to go with a number. On the other hand, one of our warrant articles is also about it might cost up to a million more for like say the sustainability piece, right? So I it's well I would think that because this budget doesn't have that sustainability piece in it. So if we thought this budget could go to say 28 and then the the sense of the meeting article says spend the million on green then we go to 29. Um so we'll take that into consideration after town meeting once we have that feedback.

Okay. Okay. I mean I I also want want to know like to say like I mean people definitely want a lower cost. That's very loud and clear. Um some of them are asking like why can't we proceed with the low whichever the one site is lowest cost. Of course there's probably the other bunch of people that are wanting different. So it's truly mary I mean I don't know if we should go like we talked about with like two different choices where people can then make the decision like I mean this is

yeah I think I think that needs to we need to wait till after town meeting at this point we're a week away we need to see what zoning is if we don't pass zoning in a res then 72 comes off the table if we do pass it there then maybe that and another property goes forward if we feel another property has merit. Um you know we're not just going to throw properties that's why we didn't put two properties forward in the past because we didn't feel 502 had enough merit. Um and so I think we have to wait and see what happens next week and and maybe we need to wait on all of this to just see what happens before we get to this,

you know. I think I agree.

I know that we're going to have this conversation. It's a difficult conversation and we need to have it and we need to have it soon. So, Mary, we um did we went through that list of items that of of where we thought we could cut some stuff out and and um Steve and Jeff put some stuff forward and it was more material-based items and and I thought that we had were able to put a bit of a dent in, you know, we were certainly willing to look all of this. I find this very difficult because, you know, if we want to get it to a number, but we don't know what that number, you know, I'm not an expert at at construction. So, you know, I I disagree. I understand people want a number, but we can't just say $25 million and let's just build to that because that might not get us the programming. So, what we I liked what we did last time where we looked at the items and said, you know, we really could change the seal the roof in this part and save x number of dollars. I guess I would like to go have us go back and use that if we're going to have this discussion next week. Get that list back out and and say, "All right, we know we can cut or we've said we're willing to cut, you know, some stuff out of this right off the bat and then bring those numbers down that way." I just I I don't know how we sit here with nothing in front of us and say, "Well, the public wants us to do $24 million, so our budget should be 26.3." Like, that doesn't make any sense to me. It's not how you move forward on projects. We need some estimate.

So part of the issue is that devil's adv. Go ahead, Mary.

Go ahead, Matt. Well, I was just going to say devil's advocate. You know, we all do this in our lives all the time. You set yourself a budget for something and you work toward that budget. Um it now do do you sometimes go over budget? Yes. And if we did, do do we we explain it? you know, like nobody knows what's going to happen with tariffs. I think people understand that that reality could change some things, but it's it's not far-fetched to say we're going to go for a budget. But I very much like your idea. I think maybe our homework is to pull out that list and see what you're comfortable getting rid of and how much does that save and does that save a million or a million and a half, two million? and then we can see if that can get us to a number we're more comfortable with.

I mean, I think then that's more realistic for me. If we're starting at a $30 million number and these are real numbers that engineering has given us and I tariffs need to be put aside because the reality is we have no idea what where that's going to land because you know you say we do a budget at home. When I did my kitchen, first I start talked to a few people to say, "What do you think about what this is going to cost me?" And then I but I had professionals tell me what they thought my kitchen was going to cost. And then I said, "Really, maybe I don't need X and maybe I don't need Y because I want to cut or you know, I do want this, so I'll cut these two things." But it was based on real numbers from real professionals, not from me spitballing and just saying, you know, I'd like to only spend $10,000 for a $30,000 kitchen. So, we're just, you know,

um, Steve has his hand up as well. Okay, Steve. Yeah, I don't I don't want to sound like a broken record, everybody, but just just remember we these are conceptual numbers. Yeah, we do have it designed. So, you know, we came up with conceptual estimates for value engineering. Also, you know, many times value engineering is done much further down the line. I know we need to get to some kind of a a number or or or or a range or or or approximate, but I just just reminding everybody that that we're at conceptual. Yeah. So, thank you.

So, there are as you mentioned that list of 43 items, there are a number of items there that will not affect the program that we believe things on the outside for example, materials. Yeah, they're material things. So, there are some things there. The other thing though I would say to you, Maria, Target does not sell anything for $30.25. They sell it for $29.95. And it's a psychological thing, but I think we have to get we have to get that number under $30 million.

I'm not arguing about that. I'm just saying that we can't, you know, we need to get there in a way that makes sense because if and it does. I think we can get under 30 million. I don't know that we can get to 26 million. And I'm and I'm afraid that that's where people are like comfortable at $25 million. I think we can get under 30. But anything that we do needs to be based in reality. Again, it can't be I would like a fire station to have this much, but I only want to do it for this much money and not be able to get there. But as Steve has said a couple of times that these are conceptual numbers and those numbers can be massaged without probably hurting the the program. But we can't do that now. We don't know that now. But we're going to have to assume that that can happen. I

I understand that we we that's what we did on the school building, right? And it worked for us. Unfortunately, there are people in town who are pushing us on this budget issue and and there that is, in my opinion, putting the, you know, the cart before the horse because we're going we're we're doing value engineering way too early on a design we don't have. Um, I think this is much more effective down the road. I do think we can say, you know, as long as we have some realistic, you know, just facts behind us, we can say we will get this project down to $28 million. If we can get it lower than that, great. But we'll we'll cap it at 28 as long as that makes sense. And that makes sense if we have, you know, that list and we have Steve's very high, you know, real.

Yeah. We need real numbers, not just what makes people comfortable because I'm sorry, it's better. I would rather people understand the reality of it um and explain it to them. The reality is we're not going to have real numbers before the town has to vote on this. That's that's just that's just the way it is. No, but we have a ballpark of we have a ballpark of real numbers. We have these estimates and then we have that grid where we can go say take out the curb, save this much, change the heating system, save this much, right? because those are things that that that we can Yep. Those are materials. So, we know the difference in those those materials. The difference between cement and granite

that is a real number and that we can subtract from the budget. And I'm not trying to be difficult. I think we need to do this, but I want to make sure it's based on fact. So, I think next week when we have all that information in front of us, um, and maybe we have the budget in front of us for our homework, we have what was just presented to us plus the million dollars, Steve. Um, and then we have our sheets. Maybe that's where we could, you know, do a little work over the week and and figure out where we're comfortable. Alan, what does the listening group think the cost should be? They've never taken a vote per se, but the the number that they've that has come out of that group has been 25 or 26 million.

But it's not based on anything. No. And and I heard I've heard 28 also. I you know but say that again Mary under 30 she said 28 she said she's the last meeting we at we were at I heard 28 million right so but again it's not based on anything right so I would say Maria that we should start with that list of 43 and we should cut what we think is reasonable without affecting the program but then I think we're going to have to take a leap of faith and say we may need another million and that's arbitrary.

I Well, so let's talk about that next week because I'm not comfortable with that. It's a leap of faith with the taxpayers. What happens if we go to build this building and it's a million dollars over because we took a leap of faith? We're going to go back and say we need another million dollars or we're going to be forced to cut things that we shouldn't be cutting. You know, the architects will design something of the with the number that we give them. So, we won't be asking for another million. Maybe we'd have to I don't know, ask for another 100,000 if something happens. But we're not going to ask for another million.

They're going to But but okay. So I But they're going to design to a number and hope we can get the programming in there. That's what you're what you're saying. I'm saying if we have numbers based in reality in in fact and real numbers that grid what Steve's given us and we can get to a point where we say look, we're looking at $29 million. We think we can get it to 28, but we're looking at 29. I would rather put say 29 and then be able to go back to the town and say, "Yay, we saved another million dollars." If it worked that way, yeah, I would rather go with the 32 and say, "We'll make it cheaper as we can, but we're not going to sell that."

But it's not just about selling it, Mac. It's about being able to live up to what we're putting out to the public. It's got to be We have to be putting forward real numbers. I I don't want to just We can't just sell this because it's not fair to the community if if if we sell it and then it's not right. Well, you know,

we want it fair to the fire department. That's my bottom line. Uh and but I I understand we're not going to solve this here, but I believe me if Mary knows she went to the our listening group and Rob was there. I push back on that concept of picking a number out of the hat. And I Rob, every every meeting that someone has mentioned that number I I said I have the same speech that you just had, Maria. But at some point we're going to have to decide. That's fine. I will just say I also Go ahead. Sorry, Mary. Go ahead.

I also want to say that the listening group isn't unanimous on this. There are several members who also say it should be built at the designed around the price that was estimated because they don't want to cut back. They understand you need to meet the program. So we it is we're walking a balance here of people who are, you know, really want to make the right investment for the long term and people who want to have it be as inexpensive as possible. And I think we all want all of that. Um, but we need to get to the design phase to do it in reality.

And and the other thing that hopefully is going to be important to the community is we have this chart here of of uh the difference between spending 30 million down to 24 million by 500,000 increments. If we go from a million with a million dollar house going from 30 million to spend to 28 million, it'll save that taxpayer $150 or so a year. Yeah. A year. $10 a month. So $10 a month is what it's going to save to to to cut $2 million out of the budget. So

that's why I was asking what does the what do the town people think it should cost? And if it's 28 million, the the savings to the individual taxpayer is not huge, right? But what is their target number that they're trying to get to? And then we can see, does it even make sense based on the best estimates that Steve and Jeff and all the other experts have told us with their 50 years of experience what this is going to cost for a for a homeowner? Their their house is valued at at 600,000. to go from 30 million to 28 million is less than $40 a year. Yeah, exactly.

So, we could cut five million out of it and save people $100 a year. And I don't know if people are willing to sacrifice for our fire department for $100 a year. Exactly. That's I'm not sure everybody's aware of that. And and for for I know you've heard a lot from the listening group and I and and you know it sounds like there was not it was not unanimous. It certainly was.

I've also heard from the community. There's a lot of people who say um it's about the budget. There's a lot of people who say it's about the location. Um but there's also a lot of people I've spoken to who are not just, you know, not just the people I I know personally, but like other people who say, "How are we going to do this? We need to do the best building that is the most costefficient that's going to be a 50-year building." And that's ultimately what we need to do. And that may mean that we're at $28 million. And I if if the listening group thought, you know, 26 is the target and we can't get there. We also it's a larger community. There's a lot of people we're taking and we're taking information from the listening group and we're taking information from the public, but everything we do ultimately needs to be based in reality. And this is where at the end of the day we're going to land pretty close to this number because if we don't do that then all of this is for not and we're going to end up in a bigger issue, you know, have a bigger issue in two years when we have to go back for more money because that's, you know,

I agree with everything you said. However, we have to get people to stand up at a town meeting and vote for whatever number it is. And then we have to ask them to go back to the polls when no one's looking and say yes or no in the in the privacy of the the box here. They're going to have to support that. So, we just we have to look at the big picture, I I think. But would I rather do it the way you're saying? Yes. But I'm not sure we can. That's just my two cents. Um Okay. I know we have a busy week ahead of us with we have two nights of town meeting and everything, but if people could do their homework and look at that grid again, um that would be great to come to the 16th with that. Thank you.

Um and is is Jeff Jeff with us here? Jeff is is with us. Yes. Um Jeff, uh we got something from um uh I wrote down here. So, Scott Turner from Fussen O'Neal, uh, were you going to explain, uh, in put put in context what he said to us of looking at the four sides.

Oh, um, yes, I can do that. So Fen O'Neal is the engineer that civil engineer that was um brought on board to look at the issues selected by the committee at 1300 Massav and 750 to 823 something like that. Massav at the 750 site it was the site distance and at the 1300 site it was the wells and the provision of a potential reuse or new well on that site. But um we also asked them to consider the four sites that were currently uh before the committee 72 Stow road uh 502 the existing public safety building and then the two sites I just mentioned. And uh what we originally asked them to do was to try to give us a ballpark cost analysis, you know, because a lot of work had been done on the two original sites and these new two sites have not had the same level of depth of engineering study and certainly haven't had cost estimates developed. But in order to understand potentially how the two new sites would compare, we wanted to understand if there was uh a cost difference. Um and pretty, you know, um what we expected happen is basically he said, I I haven't done any work on 72 and 502, so I can't really comment on those costs. Um but he did give us a ranking of the four sites to understand relatively how the cost might go. And and I want to preface this of course caveat as much as I can. This is uh a high high level overview. It's just a paper look at these sites and no real engineering work has gone into it. But

if based upon his that level of conceptual um understanding he thought that 1300 would be the least expensive out of the four uh followed by 72 Stow road then the existing public uh site the police and fire site and then finally the site at 750 that that had more to do with the potential for ledge. You know, obviously no engineering work has been done there. No digging that we've done at the other two sites has been done there. No test porings, you know, not really anything. So, we don't know how much ledge and how much it would affect the cost. Might be a little bit, might be a lot. Um, but that knowing the little that he did, that's how he ranked them. So um that list again is 1,300 on the least expensive side followed by 72 followed by the existing police and fire site and at the end the most expensive being 750.

Thank you. Clarification that was for site work correct or that not the overall not the cost. No. Yeah. I want to make sure that that the public understands that that's for site work. Site work only. Okay. um you know the building is a completely separate matter and you know may potentially be a similar cost between all four sites. This the costs of the site are really kind of what's driving a lot of the differences as well as things like phasing which we've already talked about at length. Okay. Thank you.

Great. Thank you Jeff. So my notes are just in summarizing a couple of things that we've been looking at. Um, so actually one of the things that I've learned in the last week more that the site in in the middle of the town is is really 700, 750, and 800. It's all three of those sites is the Lion's property. That's

technically one site and then 832. So again, I think it was mentioned earlier, the traffic study. Um, we we definitely need signals there if that's what we're going to do. if we were going to put it there. This and then under 1300 there have been issues about the wells, about the septic system and about the wetlands and all the reports that we've gotten back from those um have been positive that that it looks like that there are no red flags uh there. So, anything else about the

the sites? C can we um I just want to talk a little bit about the wetlands issue at 1300 um because that was raised by a resident. Um and so it it's my understanding that it it is not as severe a concern at 1300 as 502. Is that correct? Jeff's coming on now.

Yeah, happy to answer that too. Um, so we did ask the engineer because of the comments that were made at a recent meeting by resident um, again to opine on that site. Um, I'll say the same caveats I said before in case someone just started listening, but that no engineering studies were done on the site by that consultant. It was really just a quick review at a high level. We looked at some of the soils data that you can get online engineers have access to and uh you know type C and D soils. So um you know he felt that there was no real reason to be uh concerned about uh developing the site and the issues with the wetland being there. You know, certainly there would probably be things for the project team to design around parameters and things like that that would have to be taken into a con consideration, but he didn't see anything that would um jump out and say this is, you know, certainly a terrible site. Don't don't develop it.

Thank you. Thank you. And Mike, I know I I just want to ask Mike, I know you were pulling information from town records about 1300 because that's the site we have the least amount of information. Did you find anything on wetlands? I did there's um I'm sharing right now uh from Sure. Thank you. kind of zone in

what I'm sharing on the screen right now is from the town's hazard mitigation plan that was uh presented and uh to the town and accepted by the town um in April of 2024. And what this is showing is um the black dots are current um municipal uh sites or buildings and the the blue is showing um areas that are uh within the 100redyear flood plane. And so near the center of that I've circled the the two sites that we just discussed. in and uh you know to the to the far left is what Fussen O'Neal opined on at 1300 Massav and then the circled site to the far right is the current police and fire uh station. So, I um this is page uh I think it's page 83 or 84 in the town's hazard mitigation plan and um and I think this kind of corroborates what uh our civil engineer uh opined on.

Thank you. It looks pretty significantly different. Yeah. And and from the legend, the blue is the the flood plane. Yeah. The hundredyear the hundredyear flood plane. Okay. Good. Yeah. Thank you, Mike. Okay.

You're welcome. There was there was one thing that um I was asked about this week and it was about the flood plane and uh someone told me that they were made aware that 502 Massav is not in the 500year flood plane. uh which in fact may be true, but I think what's more important is that it is in the 100-year flood plane, which which means it has a um you know, a higher chance statistically of of flooding than if it were in the 500year flood plane. Um Pria's got her hand up. Who is it? Pria. Pria. Priya.

All right. Um yes. So, um, based on what I'm seeing right now, this is the map from 2024 from the ha, uh, from the hazard mitigation plan. Jeff, can you and also based on the soil and other things, Jeff, in your professional opinion, it it is feasible to make a reasonable deduction about the flood planes and and such, right? I so I'd say I think we can rely upon the work that has been done by others to identify uh flood planes and um that that data is you know pretty solid. It's been out there for a long time and it gets updated periodically. So that's what we'd be relying upon to make big large scale decisions. Um I'd also rely upon our civil engineers who is much more of a expert in site related uh matters than I am to lean on to understand if a site is reasonable to consider for development and they had no issues with 1300 mass. So I'm confident to rely upon their advice there. Of course as the committee has been discussing this doesn't mean that there would be no issues at all. um there may be things we don't know about in fact likely will be um and so the project would have to carry some contingency to to accommodate those but that would be true at any site and I think if we were talking about 502 specifically a lot of uh time has been spent discussing the wetlands setbacks the flood plane and issues around groundwater there um and that those sites are literally, you know, bordering of water, not just a, you know, a swampy area or a low-lying area. It's water.

So, um, I think if I were to look at the two, I' I'd say I'm leaning towards 1300 in terms of being more uh viable. Um, and that's really just to go back to the the comment that was made before about um 1300 being worse than 502. Um, and I I wouldn't say that, but of course, again, we haven't done all the study that has happened on 502 yet. Um, but it looks like right now it's it's fine.

Mac, just a quick point. Uh, Mike, it said that this was approved by the town in 2024. I also want to note that this was reviewed by the Mass Emergency Management Agency and MIMA has also accepted this and approved this as well. And, you know, after the review found everything to be accurate and factual. Great. Thank you. So less than a year old just for record. Correct. Say that again. Priya. So it's less than a year old. All this less than a year. All these details. Yeah. And just for record, wasn't wasn't this mitigation plan based on the new FEMA maps that came out? Yes. Right. So this is actually Is this one of those maps that came out from FEMA

or This is This is based on the FEMA maps. Correct. Correct. That's what the consultant who who did the the hazard mitigation plan uh based it all on based on and to be to be honest I'm not sure if they used the the last FEMA plans flood plane uh maps or the the the new ones. I I forget exactly. I think it was the new ones because that's how we because I remember Alec talking about it in multiple different meetings. I didn't. Okay, Chief, I just saying I I do know it was based off of FEMA, but I'm just not sure which ones it were which ones they were either because that was a recent change in those flood plane maps.

Yeah, that was like I thought the new flood plane maps came out after that. I thought they came out like in June, but this was published in April. Okay. Um but but we know with those new flood plane maps that it actually got worse. Yeah. Right. Okay. I just want I just think it's important that everybody knows where all this information came from and you know it's on the website and it's all cited. Um but still it's important that the public understand that we're just not making maps and coloring them in. This is real information coming from people that know better. pizza. Okay.

Might is it feasible to add this um into like I mean one of the pages like a drop down on the on the left it's feasible on our on our fire station site. Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. the whole book, which is over 300 pages, I believe. It's in a couple hundred pages anyway, um is is on the planning board uh site, but I could take this one page and and have it added to the to the uh packet for next week and and up on the u the fire station building committee page. Sure, I think that would be that would be good. Yeah. Thank you. If you're all set, I'll take this down.

Yes. Uh now Mary, are you would you like to take us through the the matrix work that we're going to do? I think Mike is going to show it on the screen. I just want to ask first if anybody if there were any other updates on the site. Maybe not, but we we got some historic information on 1300. I'll be honest, I haven't read it all yet. Um, but I don't know if others have, if anybody has any questions about any of that.

Well, I can give you just a quick update with what's been going on this past week. Um so you know I I was tasked to to start negotiating with uh with land owners at the last executive session uh which I have been actively doing um mult multiple times many times actually um since that and um I don't have information to share but uh I believe you'll be scheduled for an executive session next week and I would assume Mary that you want that at the beginning of the mayor of the meeting so they can use it or You can confirm that either tonight or or after, but but I should have uh something to share with you then. Okay, good.

Yeah, I agree. It should be at the beginning so it informs decisions we make. Okay, Mary, do you want me to share my screen on the on the matrix? Yeah, why don't you share it because then you can be updating and you'll hold the master. I'm sorry, Steve. I know we talked about you doing it, but Mike said that he would do it this afternoon. So, I'm I'm I'm happy to have Steve do. Yes. Go for it, Steve. I will.

So, while while Steve brings that up, um what we thought we'd do tonight is the phase one matrix. And Steve has provided us with what we've already done for 502, 72, and 700. math as and then added columns for the 700 to 832. So that incorporates the 700 but adds that 832 property and the 1300 property. So, I think we should go down those two added properties and um rate them on the items and then um if we have any changes we'd make to 50272, we should do that also. But let's maybe do the first two. Um before we

Before you do, Mary new sites, I see one change that I think needs to happen and it's under 700 massav. I think it's 1.4 million. Oh, yep. Oh, the acquisition cost. Yeah. Yeah. Just for 7 just for uh 700. Great. Thank you. Thank you. So, and and also I would add Mary, the reason that we have um two columns, one with 750 on it and then one with 700 to 832. The first one obviously was only if we only had 700 to 800 mass. Correct. Right. Correct.

So, we need that one I think is is is moot in my mind. That one's moot because we felt it just can't work. But but it's good to see the 700 column because a lot of that information can port over in my mind. So I did it for myself and things only got better by adding 832 except for maybe the cost. Um so I mean obviously I've got all fives in there just as a starting point. So I did I didn't rate these as all fives. Okay.

Right. So it's kind of our job to rate it. So for land acquisition at 700 to 832. So originally when Steve did the rating for land acquisition in our first draft, it was kind of either good or not good, a five or a one. But now we're getting some cost differential. So for me, I started um having gradation, not just a five or a one. So like for me, um

do you want me to show the cost, Mary, on this? I I blacked it out. Uh no, no, I don't want you to because not Yeah. No, I don't want you to because we don't know that. And Yeah.

Right. Um, so we just have to estimate, you know, what we think it's going to be and maybe people aren't going to be ready to score it today. But, um, I gave, so what I actually did was, um, I went back to 72 Stow Road and gave it a four. Five 502 Math had a five. 72 Stow Road had a four. And then for 700 to 832, I gave it a two. on land acquisition and I gave 1300 a one. So M Mary you're doing a one to five scale or is it like and five is good.

Okay. And then one is the lowest and so yeah and the color coding kind of follows the stop light. Okay. have some but in the me so those are my opinions but I'd love to hear other people's opinions on the land acquisition so I'm sorry Mary what did you have 502 at I had that as a five because that's no cost so that's the best scenario and you moved

and I made 72 still road so originally we had it as a one but when I start now looking at other properties, it's better. It's the lowest acquisition cost even without knowing all the acquisition costs. So, I gave that a four. Okay. And then I think I think 1300 is going to be the most expensive. So, I gave that a one. And then therefore, I gave 700 832 a two. Terry, do you want do you want me to open up the the previous sites and and start changing those numbers for this for this matrix? I don't know. I need to hear what the rest of the committee thinks about.

Okay. It's not just my opinion. People need to give their opinions because I closed those columns just to make the looking at the matrix easier. Yeah. Is it? But Mary, the only thing for now we're just going to go down. For now, I just want to go down these two. But for for me, for this one, it was relative to all the to each other. True. And so that I just wanted to explain that Mary, you didn't find for the others any like similar relation like between 502. I don't think I did. I Okay. No, I didn't. I don't think I did.

Okay. So what do people think about the rating for the land acquisition for 700 to 832 I mean I guess that makes sense if we gave one for 1300 I guess but like when you Okay so this is purely based on just the cost right for that one acquisition cost correct Right? Because remember this is this is the phase one matrix, right?

We are later going to do the phase two matrix but not tonight. At our next meeting though, we're going to be doing a lot of work next week. Um yeah, so this is just the acquisition cost. Okay. I I think Mary that makes sense if it's purely acquisition because then if we start thinking about site work costs then that changes it. This is purely to acquire the property. I think these this rating makes sense. Y and Allan nodding his head, too. Yep. Yeah. You're Alan's nodding his head as well. Yeah. I'm a little I'm sorry. Go ahead.

Go ahead, Alan. I'm I don't remember why the weighted score changes for the same attribute between the sites. Why is it more important on one side? That's a mistake. That's a mistake. That should be a 10, Steve. In for 700 to 832, the weighted score it is for every other site. Oh, it is okay. The weight the weighted percent is is right here. The weight the weight is 10. So Alan, the weight is 10. When you score a two, then the weighted score is 20. If you score a five, the weighted score is 50. All right, I'll get it now after the math is done. Yeah,

thank you. Yeah, it's doing the math for you. Yeah. Sorry. All right, so site lines visual only. What do people have? I don't want to just say what I have. I want to hear other people. So for 750 832, I actually left that at a two because I I I drove it again this morning as a matter of fact. Um and I don't know that it changes much by adding I think it allows us to put a building there easier and we might be able to move the driveway a little bit, but I don't think it adds much to the sightelines because this is just sight line visual only and has nothing to do with signals or or mitigation.

Right. So, I I put that as a two personally, but again, I'm not an engineer. I'm just um and then 1300. Actually, a five seems really high, but you know, I was kind of at a four or five because there's pretty good sight lines. Um although the four in my head is because I've, you know, I've lived in my house for 26 years. I come out on Hill Road. Sometimes it's a little sketchy. So it so I was thinking that might be more of a ford because um it's not perfect sight lines but it's it's pretty good especially if you're coming out of burrows and you try to go left. Yes, there's a rise in the there's a little bit of a rise. Correct. I agree with that.

So I mean if you're in a fire truck you can see above the rise I can see in my big Yukon I can see. But if I'm in a smaller car so I think that's more of a four for for sight lines on um 1300. I could go with a four on 1300. Mhm. What about seven? Yeah, I I like the two on 7 750 832. Yeah, I I I agree. I don't think it changes a whole lot. Just it helps with the building, right?

And the street and the entrance and exits, but not with the sight lines. Uh, I thought one of the reasons we were looking at adding 832 was because it does increase the sight limits. Larry, we had a written report as long as they keep the the shrubbery low and the guard rail and all of that that it makes a huge difference. But now we're saying was not convinced of that.

And the civil the traffic engineer wasn't convinced of that. But what it what it does though, it allows you to have both separate driveways by having the second property. And there was some discussion here that the committee had started by Larry that thinking that that other property would would help, but the traffic engineer uh didn't think so. They thought that the it was going to need the mitigation of the control lights. So, the main thing it does is separate public access from uh fire department access and allows the the building it allows the the the conceptual design from 72 to be placed on. Okay. Yeah. So

I will say I gave it the same rating Maria did a two and a four for sight lines. Yes. So I think there's an agreement there. The next one test fit lot size. Somebody else want to go first? I don't need to go first. The lot size of both these last two are fine I think.

Aren't they? Um, so, so I think the test fit is fine and the lot size is fine for both. However, I think from a putting a building on space, I think 1300 offers us a little bit more flexibility. But I think that if we're just looking at a can we put this test fit this building here, um, then I think they would be equal. I just think if you're looking I don't know where that flexibility if that would weigh into this at all. Um I think I think 1300 is slightly better because of the flexibility.

I think we can give them both fives, but I would not argue with you on the four for that one. But I I think they're a lot size would be fine. Yeah. And again, this is not a hill I would die on either. I just that was just my thought. Yeah. I had a four and a five because it it is tighter on the 700 832. So you don't have as much flexibility if you need to tweak something in the actual design phase. 500 I think is going to give you a a lot of flexibility. I think the next one is a five, right? There's no swing space.

Yeah. Right. I agree for both of those. Yeah. supports program dual access. I think four and five. I go back to that same thing with the flexibility, but I'm not sure I'm supposed to be adding that in there. That's just in my head. Yeah, I think I mean we showed you could put the same 72 still road building on just 700. So, and and that's how the full program. So, I gave them both five. That's fine with me. It's okay.

All right. Not hearing a lot. I'm okay with that. Yeah. Allan said he's okay. Okay. Topographics, wetlands, streams.

So, this is a little more difficult for me because I don't really know. I know I know 700 had wetland issues. I don't really know how 832 plays into that, but I don't know that it changes it very much, right? Because it's in that, but I haven't seen a map that included the 832. So, I almost feel like that's still a two. Um, and you know, I think 1300 in my mind is more of a four. But um based on what we've seen tonight with the flood plane, the the 100red-year flood um and some of the topographical maps that we've seen on the wetlands. But that's just me.

I can say on um on 8:32, we have not been granted access onto the site. So, we haven't been allowed to have engineers or anyone on the site. I've been in the driveway to talk to the owner and I can see that in the back it dips down, but I I You don't know what's down there? No, I don't. So, I can't tell if it's wetland. I couldn't say that that it is. Whereas, we've we've been all over um 1300 because we've been granted access to to do studies there. Aren't there some issues with uh well perimeters on uh 750 Yeah, there's definitely well

there was a riverfront, too. There's definitely wetlands on the 700 piece. And I think because of the way we fit the building, it's still a concern. Um, and then you potentially have ledge issues on the 700 832. So I also kept that at a two. Yeah. And I had 500 as a four. Yeah, I think that works. Agree with that. That works. That's good with me. Yeah. Okay. site history.

So, we didn't have a lot of history on 700. Do do we have any more in 832 or is it just The only history we have is I understand it was a restaurant at one point. It's now a residential, you know, one family home. 832 was a restaurant. It was a diner that remembers How long ago was that? A long time ago. That's why it's why it goes that way. Well, that's interesting. And I always wondered why they built the house that way. Wow. I never knew that.

And then on um on 1300 I shared with you the the history that I I found as far as um you know hazardous materials, septic easements and and all that. Everything I found I I shared with you this week and we'll put it in it was too late to get in the packet, but I'll put it in next week's packet. Perfect. So again, without any updated numbers or or history, I think you go with a three at 750 832.

Um, and then four at 1300. Although some of that stuff you sent was a little bit old, but you know, if um I mean I think we're pretty confident that it's, you know, the site's clean and that kind of stuff and we have, you know, we know that 1300 was just sold a couple of years ago. So that there was it was two two years ago. The the the uh the phase one was done two years ago. The review of the the um title five was done two almost two and a half years ago. So that was all that was all recent even though the the the you know the latest thing they had for uh hazardous materials was 1985. Yeah, I saw that. Right. And it was a complete cleanup. Right. Right.

Okay. No. So, uh, three. So, I I was similar. I had a three and a four. Yeah. Just because some of it the material was a little dated, but um I Yeah. And you and you rated 1300 a four. Why, Mary? again just because some of the information was a little dated and so I was like, "Oh, are we going to find something we're not expecting?" Um, Mary, by dated, do you mean two and a half years old or do you mean the stuff that goes back to 1985?

No, the the stuff that goes back to 1985. Yeah. because when it was when it when it was sold two and a half years ago um the planning department and the board of health reviewed and the most recent they found was back to 1985. So that was a recent study when the when the property sold and they you also um inspected the title five at that time as well and that was cleaned up successfully. Right. It was.

Yeah. Yeah. And Mary, if they it sold two years ago, the assumption is there's some bank loan on it and and we haven't seen any um remediation on the property, they wouldn't have gotten a loan if the property wasn't was had some kind of hazardous waste on it. So, um we can assume that that's fairly clean, but I still think a four is the way to go with that. Can we make that a five? Okay. I don't know. What does everyone else think? Why do you think that? The only thing is that we haven't really had civil engineers study that, right? So that's why I think four, yeah, four is better because our people haven't looked at it and we can't, you know, plus we don't know a whole lot about the piece of property across the street that this connects to. Yeah.

We don't really know much other than there's a leech field there. Well, did they ever put stuff down the drain that end up in a leech field that shouldn't be there? We don't know. Yeah. Well, if they had a title five a couple years ago, yeah. Did they sample that looking for hazardous material? if if they they would have title five is mainly for the performance of a lease septic, right? Um but if in order to go forward with any type of bank financing, you need a 21E. So there was either a 21E done then or it was done by the previous owner and there would have been at a minimum a 21E light, right? Um but I I do believe if I'm not mistaken, um there is a loan on the property. So that had to have had some type of

We haven't seen any record of a 21E, have we, Mike? Well, because that's not public record. So, I think a four is fine just because we really don't have definitive I agree engineering recently. And and to to be fair, um 832 sold at that same time 2 and a half years ago. So, it would have passed its title 5 then. Uh I don't know about um other history on the other parts 700, 750 to 800. Um but but we do know that 832 sold around the same time as 1300. Okay. Okay. Okay, Mary. All right. Um proximity of neighbors is the next one.

Um so the 7832 it does sit in front of the enclave. Um, so it has the same abutters as 72 still roads. Um, plus the abutters that are on the side. Um, and then uh then we have 1300 which doesn't really have neighborhood of butters. So, the difference though, I think, between 72 Stow Road and and uh 750 is that the trucks aren't coming out toward toward them. They're not coming out toward 72, are they? They're coming out to a Well,

they're coming out to an abandoned house. Well, it's sort of coming in that direction. And so, I I think that's I would think if I lived at Enclave, that would be considered differently. Um, I would I mean we have Go ahead, Mary. I'm sorry, Mary. I was just say I feel like it's different. I haven't heard people say they they're concerned about it. Um, last time we gave it a four because I I think yeah, we gave it a four. So, I think I would keep it at a four because there is a slight issue with neighbors and to me the 1300 would be a five.

Yeah, I agree. If if 700 was a four, then this should be a four. Exactly. For sure. Yep. That's fine. And the five is good for 1300. Yep. Then we have long range town planning master plan. I think that remains a five, right? Because this is in the master plan. Yeah. Yeah. I think so. I think they're both fives. Um then we have permitting. So until we until uh this would be atypical. So yeah,

you know hopefully on Tuesday if we get zoning this article two will address why that was a one. So that's either you know what I mean? If article two passes this goes up. If article two doesn't pass we're still at a one on the 750 832. So, right now it's a one. Right now it's a one, but that could change um you know on Tuesday night, but I don't we don't know that yet. But over at 1300 it's a five because there already is. There's no opposition to that though. Really? Is is there

I Mac I' I've I've gotten through this process I've gotten a little jaded. I don't even try to guess anymore on what's going to pass and what not. I assume there's no opposition, but I don't know if somebody's going to stand up and say, "No, I want Town Center to be X." I just So, I don't even guess anymore. Don't forget, you got DOT. Say again. Yeah, there's DOT. So, you got DOT DOT is part of this.

Yeah. So, that's going to keep 700 832 lower. And for me, it all to me all the sites need some DOT. So, I made 500 of four. I mean, excuse me. I made 1300 of four and I had 700. I kept it at the one, but you're right, Maria. We could revisit that next week. Okay. But if you think it's a five, like, you know, go ahead and put your view forward. I think four is fine. I think four is fine, too.

I have a question for Steve. When he says atypical, is that not including special permit? Like are you talking about just a variance as far as special permitting? Well, I'm talking I mean you you generally going to go through planning, you're going to go through concom DOT. So that that's sort of where I I come up with with atypical and then you know you you guys have some other things that we didn't anticipate originally but have come up. Thank you. Okay, so that takes us to municipal presence vvisibility.

I think it would have the most v visibility at 1300. The 750 kind of goes down away from this this main street, but it'd be pretty visible there also. I guess I think they're fives. Yeah, both. Yeah, I thought uh Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, that's fine. I agree. Yeah. And then um available utilities.

Again, I'm not an engineer, so I don't know. Is there different utilities coming in? There's obviously utilities for the house that's there, but if we're putting in a fire station, I assume there's different utilities. Well, remember what we're really interested probably is electricity. We're not going to use fossil fuels. Okay. Right. We'll have a tank for an emergency generator diesel supply, I'm thinking. But that's it. We're not going to run gas to the fire station, I wouldn't think. Well, I know because we're trying to be sustainable and green. We are. But is that part of what's basic or are we waiting on this again until I don't know until is that part of the basic um building code or is that like the the additional million dollars to be non fossil fuel?

I don't know.

I think I'm happy to jump in. We're talking about building code things. Um so the energy codes that we would be required to follow make it very difficult for us to install gas and use gas fired appliances. And I think the town just in general uh from a sustainability perspective would prefer to not be fossil fuelbased. Now we are making a distinction here between what's base code terms of you know in order to get a permit you need to do the minimum of these certain things and what would be nice to have and maybe cost additional money. So it technically is feasible to use gas in the building but it is very difficult to find a pathway for these buildings to do that. So my opinion and recommendation is that you assume there would be no natural gas line to the building for the you know the powering of the building itself would be all electric and what you're really looking at here are things like septic waste basically waste and water. Um, is there a well needed or or is there a septic system needed? And just about every site in town is going to have the requirement for those

and fiber,

right? Yeah, correct. Thanks, Steve. So, other utilities like internet and uh radio, things like that. Um, but everything's coming in on fiber, so access to uh where those lines are located, which generally is messed up. But Jeff, my question is, um, as a lay person, there's a building at 1300. So, does that mean the utilities are already there? Does that mean it's easier to pull utilities than a house at 832? If you say no, it's no. If you say yes, I mean, I I would defer to you, but I'm just trying to understand if having a building there and knowing all the utilities are already to that building, a commercial building, and we have a well, we have two wells. We know that one can be used if we're it's not a public water supply. So the well's already there, right? We don't have to dig a well for 1300. Is that correct?

Kind of. I understand it was like kind of high level. Well, but I'm just trying to understand that.

So the the problem is that we haven't done any real work on 1300. So I couldn't say to you conclusively that we can reuse the well, although it's potentially possible to do that. That's what the engineer said. Um, and I couldn't say conclusively that we can reuse the utility connections the building already has. Although I'd have to say given the size of the building, they probably already have things like three-phase power and the amperage draw is probably more than what the fire station will need. So, you know, just anecdotally, I I think at 1300 probably is already supplied with the types of things we would need for a fire station building. But then there would also be costs to essentially um transition from what it has now to what we need for our building and a residential house location that those services wouldn't be sufficient um for the most part for a fire station. So we'd be looking to augment or add more services. So it's kind of splitting the difference between the two. Don't forget we didn't weight this very heavily either.

Yeah, this is also the least amount of percentage points of the entire if a four and a five doesn't make too much of a difference in the scoring. But we we want to be right accurate. Where is I gave them both fours assuming we would need new wells and septics until such time as we find that's not true. But for now, um, I kept it I made them at four. Both of them fours. Yeah, I'm okay with that. Yeah, because I I I have a question. What where did the issue about the radios and the antenna? Did that fall under some other category? I know that's It was round two, Max.

The next one. Oh, okay. I'm sorry. Thank you. Because I know that was an issue at 72 Stow Road. Yes. Yes, it was. Okay, I've lost track of how Hold on, Mary. Alan has a question. I'm sorry. How are we rating these? What are the numbers again? Four. Both fours. But we're relying on the fact that because there's a house on 800 that the septic and the well would be enough for a fire station. Is that what we're saying? That's why we're giving it such a high number. There's no septic there at all for the fire station. It's a residential septic. That's utilities we're talking about. No, that includes septic. This includes septic. Yeah.

On the other sites, on the other sites when we said exist, when we said needs a new well and septic, we gave it a four. So, I carried that logic through because we don't know 1300. We I mean, we we kind of know 1300. We think we don't need a well, but we don't know that for sure. No, I agree. But we know on 700 832 we definitely need a well and we definitely need a septic, right? But 700 was rated a four. So and there's some concern that there's ledge there 750, right? So that could affect that could affect septic. I mean maybe that's we can leave it at four for now. We can always update it when we get more information. Yeah, I think maybe that should be

not much of a difference between these ratings mean anything. What do you think, Steve? I mean, I I just I mean, I I know it's good to to be as accurate as possible, but right now, if we look at the scores, I mean, 1300 is um blowing out is way up there. I can't see it. So, the the score right now with the two fours 750 832 is 327 and 1300 is 396. Right? So it really doesn't matter if we rate one a three and one a four at this point. Okay. Because that's not really that's the weight on that is not heavily Yeah, it's not heavily weighted. So

Okay. All right. So before we move off this, did anyone else change any of the scores for 50272 or 502 math or 72 Stow Road based on this exercise? No, although what you said about the the cost makes sense to me now. I guess I was just thinking we've already scored those. So when I looked at them at home, I wasn't even thinking we should rescore them. They've already we've talked these to death, right? But I guess the scoring on the the cost, I'm okay with changing those based on what we know about the other properties.

So Mary, what did you make 72 again? I made it a four. Okay, so 502 was a five because that's the best, right? And then 72 is second best. And then I had 1300 as a one, the lowest, but 7832 I gave it two. I thought it was a little better. So Steve, will you send that to us when when you can? And you want me to make that? Does everybody agree to make the change on Oh. acquisition for 72 to from a one to a a four. Right. We did agree that we would think about that.

Alan and I are Yes. Alan's Alan's nodding his head, which makes it hard for Mary to nodding hers. It's I just did it so it's done. Okay. So, so interesting. It's that the scoring is uh 72 392 1300 396. Yeah. So right now 1300 scoring the highest. So right 502 is 371. Um 72 72 is 392 700 is 297 and then you know what the other 327 and

what was 502 502 was 371 so so can we go ahead Alan I'm just thinking to myself to make sense of this we have to figure out if just looking at the numbers as a decision maker what is a significant difference between these and how do you interpret which site is the best based solely on these numbers and nothing else and I don't what would the difference between the numbers have to be before you get an aha moment because the numbers are pretty darn close right I think but what does everybody else think

well I think the I think Stow Road and 1300 are close um I think I don't I don't not sure 502 two I think has got a higher score because it the five on the top line frankly. Um and what's the second line? See, can you move it over so I can see what the sight lines? Oh, sight lines. Sight lines. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Sight line visual. But there's I mean there's other issues that we have found on that. Um yeah. So remember there's the phase two round, right? And so I think you have to combine the two

like what we used this before you used this for last time was what sites can move forward but I think this time we need to take this data and then do the site two and then weigh all of that together. Um and so I'm not sure we come out with any kind of answers tonight. And I think for next week we need to everyone needs to do their homework on the phase two and we quickly revisit this for anything based on vote like things could get better for 700 832 if the dimensional zoning passes for example.

Yeah. Make the changes on this that affected that are affected by town meeting. Right. Because 72 road could go bad really quickly. um and 502 because if we don't vote residential, we can't build on either one of those locations. Correct. So, Mary, if I if I search for Don't forget the round two, we had we had reports and data. I know I know that we were incorporating. Okay. I'm just I think it's going to be a hard task to try and figure. It's going to be a hard task, but we need to pick sites.

Okay. And we're we are going to pick sites without all of that. We don't have the time or the money. It it's maybe a little scary, but I you know, so we have to see what happens at town meeting next week and then revisit all of this. This is what you'd expect. Essentially the same. Okay. So those are two of our bigger tasks. So this the phase 2 matrix next week and uh kind of discuss a bottom line next week.

Yes. Yes. And we're doing a lot next week. We might Mary we have executive session. Should we start earlier for exe the executive session if we have that much? Could we start at either 6:30 or 6:45? I don't know if anyone else can make that. I'm sorry. No, 45. No, I don't think we need an hour in executive session. I think you know 15 or 20 minutes just so that we can start this meeting closer to seven rather than starting with executive session at 7 and eating a half an hour. A meeting after 10. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I don't know if everyone else can make those times. I don't know.

How about you, Priya? Can you come a little earlier? Um, at this currently I I I'm guessing yes, but again, yeah, let's let's plan for it. Okay. 6:30. What do you think, Mike? Okay. Okay. As long as next Thursday. All right. So, we'll plan on 6:30 for executive session and try to start this meeting as close to seven as we can. So, wait a minute. We then need to post this meeting as to follow our meeting. We're going to open open session at 6:30. Mhm. And then so post the meeting for 6:30. Right. Right. So then we can just go immediately because if we're done at 6:35,

right, which won't happen, we can start this meeting at 6:35. Okay. Um, thank you. uh executive sessions. Okay. What's next? Just just public outreach. Yeah. I'm just trying to public outreach. Do you want me to talk about that while you're doing that? Yep. Okay. So, uh we met and Priya, feel free to step in. Um we've made uh updates to the website. Um we're going to add I don't know if the table

um Mac I mean it's on there now. Okay. That was the only thing I wasn't sure about. Um, so we'll continue to put stuff on the website. That's that's ever changing and so it's really important that people check the website um regularly. We meet every Friday and if there's any new information during the week, we make sure we reach out to Rajan and get it posted. So we have a lot of the stuff from our um town or uh fall town meeting fair we got up and posted on the website. Um let's see. Uh the next thing that we're looking to do is village day which is October 18th with a rain date of October 25th and that's the EDC is doing that. Does everybody know what the village day is?

No. Oh yes I guess I know about the walking Dwali was next on Sunday. Uh Dwali is on Sunday but we're not doing anything there formal. So um I was asked to bring the tents. That's why I was just okay. Well that wasn't part of our outreach. So um but I mean maybe Pria can talk to that. Let me just finish on the village. So, um EDC is putting this on and it's going to be a walking day. So, it's going to start down at the Middle Sex Bank Plaza with the businesses down there and then people are walk up and we're going to do a tent there and chief is going to we're going to use the fire department tent. We're We don't know where the tent's going to be yet and Mary's going to fill out the paperwork. Um and Mary, do you have the time on that? Is it um

No, I was trying to look it up, but my computer can't bring up the town website while I'm on Zoom. Um um I want to say so I I'll see if I can pull it up on Okay. So I want to say it's like 11 to four is four I think. I think so. What is the end of that?

So we are going to need everyone on the committee to to be able to fill in. Um I can be there in the morning, but I have an event that I have to leave for. um on the 25th I can't be there at all on the rain date because I have a wedding that day. Um so we're going to send out a Google sheet. We're probably going to wait till after town meeting because there's a lot going on right now and I'm sure nobody needs one more thing to do for the fire station building committee. So we'll wait till next week. We'll send out a goo Google sheet with times. Um, and we're going to use because a lot of the information we had for that fair, the town meeting fair, with the exception of the articles for town meeting, um, we are going to use a lot of that and what we'll have a better idea of where, you know, through the zoning of what we're looking at. So, if we have to hone some of the information, yeah,

we'll do that. Um, but, um, I think I just got the time sent to me. It's 11:30 to 4:00. 11. Okay. 11:30 to 4:00. Yeah. Um, I will I will note that that graphic is so big it's really hard to pull up the town website right now on every device. For the past couple days, I've been struggling. Oh, the graphic for the village day. Yes. Okay. It's like huge when you pull up pull it up on your website on computer.

So, uh, so we're going to need setup and breakdown and then people kind of manning the booth. Um I'm not entirely sure where we're going to be, but we the other thing we talked about Mary I wanted I think we wanted to run this by the committee is we have the locations. So we were thinking about taking um orange cones if we can get the permission of the the um people that whose land we don't own. Um orange cones with balloons

and put it at the fire station. put it down where the exit or ent the the apparatus exit would be entrance would be on 72 Stow Road with the balloons and then 750 832 if we can get permission and then 1300 if we can get permission because part of the village day is also going to be go up to Bravo Pizza and you know they're up the street so people can drive up there. Um so we'll have those and then you know we can point out that where those cones are are the potential for sites. Now, that may change and we may only have, you know, two potential sites. So, a lot of it's based on that. But if assuming we get all four. Um, does that sound like something that that's a good idea? I think it's a great idea. Okay. So, I need to work and see if DPW has four cones.

Like I don't traffic cones. I don't have traffic cones. Oh, you do? We have cones. Okay. So, if we get balloons, we can All right. We can chat offline. So, we don't need to spend a lot of time about this. So, and Maria, you might do some balloons at our table and it's like a legend almost to say, "Okay, that's what I as you go down the Yeah, like you know, I don't know. We'll find out how much myar firet truck balloons are." Maybe we could do like a firetruck balloon on on each one or something. But we'll see. Oh, that's a cute idea, right? Because that would be So, and then um I don't I don't think it's not like Father's Day. We don't need to have stuff for kids and kind of, you know, people are just going to be walking. So, and I don't know where we'll be.

Well, you know that that site that's 700 to whatever 832. Yeah. People might be tempted to walk there. And we don't have permission to have people walk on that private property, do we, Mike? So, we need to make sure people can stand on the other side of the road and see the site, but they ought not walk on it. Um, same thing with 1300. I don't think that though. So, my my feeling is it's not going to be like on a map that says walk to this location. I I don't know. I guess we would have to maybe Mary, when you fill out the paperwork, you could talk to to Abby about um how they're going to do it. I was just thinking that if people stop by our booth, we could say, "Oh, we have the cones up at the four different locations we're looking at." Um you know, if you drive by

look and look at it when you drive by, right? Exactly. Because no one should be walking on that. Mass is crazy. Who wants to walk up Massav? That's the 72 site. They could go on that town property. They could if they wanted to park them, right? I But you can see it. I mean, it's so close to the corner that literally if you put the cone there, you can see how close it is to the corner. That's the point. So, people can see how close the entrance would be to that intersection. Yep. And where the other properties are. So, because there are people who I, you know, I try to explain

the 750 832 and it's like it's the abandoned blue house. It's it's the blue house that's on its side. And then I'm like, it's the road that goes the construction road. They're like, oh, the construction road. So, you know what I mean? That way people just know. Um so um and that really right now that's all we have going and then um uh we'll figure out you know whatever we have to do leading up to town meeting if we want to do some more listening sessions with people slashforums um if we want to do a town fair town meeting fair type thing I don't know we we'll talk about that after this town meeting I think we felt pretty good about last Monday's we did we did

session in we had we talked with a lot of people that about the town meeting and about the fire station, right? So, we could do something like that. I don't know. Is the select board going to add anything to the the December warrant? Do we know? Like, do they have placeholders for anything or is it truly going to be just the fire station? Not that not that I know of at this point. Okay. So, we could do something small scale. We could probably even do it here in the Graange um for the, you know, special town meeting and just have it be all about the fire station. Same kind of thing. um we don't need to reinvent the wheel. Alex did a really good job getting the information out. So, we could ask him to work with us maybe to help us put that together. So, but I think we're going to get through this town meeting. I think a lot of us are tired. This outreach is

Yeah, it's exhausting. We I I think that when I signed up for outreach, I didn't realize that I was going to be doing outreach for this many months on end. Um, I Prius feels the same way, and I'm sure Sarah does, too, because we're expending a lot a lot of energy on zoning, which I didn't think we were going to need to do. I thought we were going to be educating people on designing and building a building. So, um, there's a bunch of other tired, so we don't want to think beyond village day right now. Well, thank you for all you're doing. Yeah, that's fair. Okay, Pria, that's it. Everything else, did I get everything?

Um, yes. Yes. I think um we thought about Diwali Fest, but like I think one of the things that we um noticed in the past couple of years is that majority of the folks that come there are from like all over um like Metro West. It's not like a whole lot of Boxboro folks there. So, we kind of felt like um almost like the freebie market, right? Like again, there's not a whole lot of Boxboro folks there. So, um yeah, we're not like really um doing that this year.

Okay, thank you. We have two sets of minutes to approve. Uh we have to approve the September 11th minutes. We sent that back to there were some a couple of uh additions that were made to that. So, I'll take a uh first of all, I guess any more suggestions on this September 11th? I want to make sure is what we got supposedly the ones that were changed. Yes. Okay. Because I didn't see anything changed. Yeah. So, for for instance, uh on the 11th one, that was the one where we all agreed that Larry was remote. Mhm. But it doesn't say that Larry was remote.

So, I don't think that change was made. And then at the top of page two, we said we were going to change wherever it said 19 people to 25 because that's the definition of a right public. But yet it still says 19. So I'm not sure we got an updated version or else we asked the person to wait to see if there are any other edits before making any. Well, it she she I had asked that that there would be some mention of us talking about the 43 items. She listed everything that I mentioned. I didn't mean it, but that's in there.

Okay. So, the changes that we talked about before, the additions weren't made necessarily because they're still in here. So, so state those specifically now and we will vote it as amended. Right. So go through your changes that are in there starting with we already talked about Larry was remote but it doesn't say and then at the top of page two that's on let's just be wait hold a minute just to be clear for the person doing the minutes on page two in the middle Mr. Grossman joined the meeting at 7:35 p.m. It says that remotely,

right? But it doesn't it it's this is actually um where we list the attendance at the top of the meeting. Oh, I thought but I think we want to add remotely to that statement. I've just added it to both places too. Okay. And then at the top. Okay. Yeah. So there and there. Right. This is what the giveaway is that it's not at the top of the meeting, but okay. Now, at the top of page two, it still says 19 people per day in the definition of a private water supply, right? But it's supposed to say 25 in two places. And that was confirmed by

Okay. So, on the the gentleman that was I think Mr. Turner along the way said something and then Jeff agreed with him that it's supposed to be 25. Yeah, we had that conversation last week. I remember that. So, it's the second line on page two and the seventh line on page two, right? Yes. Yeah. Wherever it says 19. Oh, it also in that second line down, Mary, it says over 19 people. It's not it's not over 25. It's up to 25. See how it says over 19? Got it. It should be up to 25, not over 25. Up to 25 people, right? Up to 25.

Yep. Okay. Then, uh, two more paragraphs down, the big paragraph right in the center, it says, "The zoning at 502 Massav is a pro, but it doesn't say why is it a pro. I thought it was a con. It's a pro. Why do we determine because one of our lawyers said there might not be a zoning issue after all? Well, I don't know. Yes, because somebody said it it could be built there because of the what is the term? The past pre-existing non-conforming nonconforming. Do we need to put that in or is that just understood?

I'm not sure we actually said that during the meeting. I actually don't think that concept is fully understood because it's a little bit okay, you know, lots of opinions on that. So, are we gonna leave it like that? That's the question that Alan is posing. It's important to some people in town that that's true. But, well, we're not saying why we think or why we know it's true. I can't imagine she just made that up. I Well, I know. So, somebody said it, but Well, I we'd have to go if if we are going to be more specific then we shouldn't vote these minutes and we should listen to the tape and correct it that way. So we have to decide do we want to do that

or do we want to leave it as is because we can't add words we're not sure about. Right. But we can't have a sentence that just ends without an explanation either. So okay then we will fix these minutes. So what else do you have Alan? We're not going to vote these tonight. We're gonna take all these and do it one more time.

That's Oh, what's this? Okay. On um the next page three at the very bottom, uh bullet number 29. It talks about replacing the top of the apparatus bay with sheetrock. And that this is a reasonable idea, but I'm not part of these meetings. But to me, the sentence makes no sense because the top of the apparatus bay is unfinished space anyway with a bunch of HVAC stuff up in there and what have you. What's being replaced with shame? I mean, it's the wall number 29.

The you wouldn't you there's certain a certain finish at the lower part of the wall. I think they call it a CMU. And then after a certain height, you could go to sheetrock. I think we need to say replacing the top of the wall of the apparatus bay. This makes it sound like the ceiling. Okay. It the the actual term was Yeah. You were correct on what you just said. Reduce height of interior CMU is what? Yeah. That that's not what this says though. So that just needs to be expanded to what Allan just said, right? It's the wall. Got it. Well, that's actually it says replace

top of the wall. Replace the apparatus room CMU above 14 ft with drywall in the apparately what this needs to say and that's not what it says in the minutes. Uh mech. Okay. So Mike, what it says in the grid is what correct it should say in the minutes. Got it. That's all I have. Yeah. Sorry. And that's just one set of minutes. That's all right. So Okay. So we're not that tonight, I guess. I guess we need we can either vote it as amended and assume it's going to be or No, but there's a hole.

There's a hole in it. We can't vote it because we don't know what to put in for that particular part. Okay, I will do my best to watch the recording. All right, let's tackle the September 25th minutes. Any corrections? So far so good. There's not a lot of red on this one. I have one thing here. Okay. Where is it, Alan? Oh, I guess it it it No, there's nothing wrong with the minutes. It's it's a question that I wanted answered and it already has been about having a table during the where we talk about Wow. All right. No, no errors found. Okay, make a motion. Do

I hear a motion to accept the minutes of September 25th? Uh, as as so moved. Alan, and I'll second it. And Maria second. We're so excited. Allan had a whole set of minutes with no edits. Any other discussion? All those in favor? Mary? I. Priya. Send that I. Allan I. Maria Neil and I. Mac I Okay, we survived the minutes. We love you, Alan. Keep us honest. Uh, any updates, Mike?

Uh, you don't have any at this time. Steve, do you have any other updates? I do not, Max. Thank you. Okay, Chief. All right. Uh, time for public input. Anybody in the room like to share anything? Okay, we have John's iPad first. Okay, John. John's iPad. Oh, shoot. I'm sorry. Just should be able to unmute. There we go. Yep. It's John. Hi, it's John Marowitz. Oh, okay.

Okay. I I'll be brief. I know you want to get out of there. Um, thanks for a very good meeting. The question I had is the document that Mary read, which I believe was Sarah's notes. Yes. Is that available? I thought that was a great document. Uh if it wasn't in the packet, it'll be in the packet next week. Yeah, we can put add it to the packet. We don't have Okay. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Good point, John. Yep. That was my husband. Anything else? John. Nope. Okay. So, Mark Barbado's next.

Okay. Mark, thanks, Max.

Um, point out that you guys were mentioning a uh a flood map from the flood mitigation study. that map does not show the Azones uh surrounding 1300 Massav in fact on the property itself. So I just wanted to point out that uh you know if you're basing your opinion on the flood zone, you should at least instead of using a flood mitigation study created by Boxboro, use the actual FEMA flood map. Uh I guess my understanding is after looking at it a little bit appears that the flood zone that is shown on that map is the AE zone but the Azone is not shown at all. So the difference between the two is AE zones are flood mapped for elevation and Azones they have not done that yet. So, when you have a flood zone, it's still in the 100red-year flood zone, and that's on the property at 1300. Um, it it's still a flood zone. It's just when you don't map the actual elevation, you presume 2 ft of sheet flow across the surface of the ground. So that's why I was telling you guys I was confused last meeting that you're so interested in this property and so afraid of 502 when 502's BF is 6 ft below the uh slab uh and at this site uh 2 ft above grade is 2 ft above grade and it's on the property doesn't make a lot of sense to me. And then the other uh concern I have is your uh I've mentioned

this a few times now. There's an interim wellhead protection area uh on 72 Stow Road. And that area uh is right where the the building is cited. that was done to mitigate the uh nuisance of having noise and lights and other things at 72 star road impacting Sheriff's Meadow and Tisberry Meadow and that's that would require a cut into the ground the final grade that would bring the final grade to with below 4T of the seasonal excuse me the the uh seasonal high groundwater area in my opinion I haven't had heard anyone mention that at any of these meetings. I have heard rumors that Jeff said he thinks it'll work. Well, I personally like to have more information than that. And so the listening group uh actually informed Mac and Mary, I know they remember this, that we told them that the listening group would like to see more information uh brought forward for these sites before you go raiding them and grading them when you don't really know a lot about 1300. In fact, you didn't even know it had a flood zone on it apparently and you're uh rushing to grade them all or a deadline. And so I I'm asking you to just really be careful with what you do and don't overpromise things that can't be delivered at at 72 Stow Road. You know, think carefully about what where where you're going with this credibility matters.

Thanks. Okay. As you know, Mark, we I'm sorry. Um Yes. Which John? Mark. Um you can respond to me. No, Mark. Yeah. No, it's not. It's just not it's not a debate. I just I we are aware of the zone A and the zone AE and when you do look at the most recent FEMA flood map, which I'm on fema.gov right now, you you are correct. They are near it, but 1300 is not in it. It is it might be around it, but it is not in either one of those zones. No, I just just we are aware of those maps. We have those maps. Again, all of those mitigation plans were done based off of those maps. Just so you're aware. Okay. Thank you though.

Yeah. I I would also mention obviously we've spent a lot of money on 502 and 72 and found issues uh with them. And so we started looking at other sites and we don't have the same resources to do the the same research on 1300 and uh and 750 that we had on those first two. That's just a matter of fact. So, we're doing the best we can and getting as much information as we can before we have to make our decision. Okay. Cindy Marowitz. Anybody else? Yes, Cindy Marowitz. Oh, Cindy.

Yeah. Hi, guys. Um, I also wanted to point out the issue with the flood map. Um, for some reason, the hazard mitigation plan only shows the AE zones, does not show the A zones. Both A and AE are the hundred-year flood areas. So again, you know, the concern that that uh you were kind of going off on uh with an assumption there that hadn't been fully vetted, that concerns me. It's it's really important that you get your your uh information correctly. And you know, it's it's unfortunate that the map that's included in the hazard mitigation plan didn't identify that they only identified AE, not the A, but both are 100red-year flood. Um as Mark explained, one has base elevation and the other is assumed. So um but they are both uh representative of the 100red-year flood. So just please be careful of your facts. And the other question I had is um when you were doing the matrix this time I didn't understand it towards the end there you you increase the weight the ranking of the 72 stro property from something up to a four. And as my understanding is you're ranking them based on on cost acquisition of a property. And could you just reexlain why you changed that rating number? Um my did the price change or was there another reason why that number all of a sudden went I think it went from like a one or a two and bumped it up to a four but I didn't hear the explanation. Thanks.

Can you answer that Mary?

Uh yes. So when we did it before it was done as because there were just a few sites, it was done as either um a five because there was no cost or a one because there was some cost. But now that we have more sites on there, the costs vary. And so 72 Stow Road, it has the lowest acquisition cost. So 502 has no acquisition cost, so it would be a five, but 72 Still Road has a lower acquisition cost relative to the others. So we gave it a four. We expect, but we don't know yet for sure. So this could change that we set that 1300 would be the highest acquisition cost. So we gave that a one. And then we gave the 700 to 832 which is multiple properties a two for acquisition cost.

And what about 700 was a relative rating. What did you give 700? We didn't change we didn't change that because we're not considering that that cost the table. The cost differential between 72 and 700 is only 0.2 right? So, for $200,000, it just felt like you you bumped that number. Well, we don't know yet. We're we we don't know that yet. We're we're negotiating. It's it's plain old properties that need to be purchased.

Plain old 700 we didn't change because we're not considering that one anymore. It does not work alone. And so, we didn't even talk about that. Okay. But you had a range from zero to something. No, from 1 to five. Okay. But but the cost of the the 502 property is is zero. And then the next best cost is 1.2 million at 72 Stow Road and then the next best cost is something higher than 1.2 million. Is that what you're saying? Yes, exactly. All right. Well, I don't think you can give those rankings unless you're working with real numbers because we don't know what those numbers are. We we also talked about

we also talked about adjusting these as we get different information but we have to keep doing our work and moving forward. So thank you. Okay. Thanks. Anybody else? Pria would like to say something. Okay. All right. Now this is exactly why Mary that like coming up with a cost. You see how now like without knowing exactly without like don't overpromise underd deliver uh like these are the reasons why Mac I hope you you are hearing it too it's very hard to come up with a number like arbitrarily just wanted to make that thank you

okay anybody in the room like to speak as chief one more clarification just um in fairness to what um Mark had been talking Look, if we were looking at still looking at the other side of Burrows where the leeching field is, and if we were looking at that area, then yes, there is a zone A on the opposite side of Burrows than where the building would be. But the location where the building is is outside of that zone A. Okay. I just wanted to bring up this in fair in fairness though the other side of burrows where the leeching field is where we've actually been looking at not potentially pursuing that side

uh because it seems like the engineer thinks that we might be able to do things on one side that does have a zone A over there that is helpful that is helpful back in the day it was allowed to put a leech field in a flood zone I don't know how that leechfield ended up in a wetland flood zone and anything but um Jeff Glidden actually has his hand raised as well Jeff Um, you should be able to unmute now.

Okay. Um, just to follow up on Pria's comment at the last meeting, Mac, you distributed to us a lot of cost information for Rocklin. And we never really got to review that at the listening group. And by the way, the listening group is terrific. It's 11 people that are all, you know, residents and they're on Stow Road and we have a fire retired fire person. So, it's I think it's been very good. But what we asked is could we look at and compare the estimates that we have for cost compared to Rockland. And this was raised in in uh July. Just a suggestion that we talked Lynn Lynn who had talked to the fire chief as well as the town manager said they'd be very amenable to talking with you or the fire chief about similarities and differences between the two fire stations. They just got their fire station approved on um the 13th of September and their building is very similar in size, 24,000 square feet. Ours is proposed to be 20,800. The cost that they've got approved at their town meeting was 26 million and our proposal is 31. I don't know why they're different. I'm not trying to tell you I do. I'm just saying I think it'd be very good to understand and talk to their town manager, their fire chief, and try to understand either they're wrong or we're wrong, but it's a gap of about $8 million. And Steve, you can shake your head again and again and again. We're here to try to build a fire station. We've been at this for a decade

and we need to get a fire station built. The whole listening group is so committed to this. We're trying to find zoning, sighting, design, and cost that will work. We want it to get approved. You could keep shaking your head and and I I've never met you. You've never met me, but I can tell you we've built a school. We've built a library. We we've you know, a lot of things in town probably before you got here. But you ought to think about this as a crowd as to what's the difference between how can they build something and maybe they're wrong for 26 million and we're going to build a smaller building for 31. Thank you. And I'm sorry if I picked on you but yes. All right. Thank you.

Just Jeff. It could mean also if I can also say that it could also mean that there is some differences too, right? Like I I I understand where you're coming from. So I think maybe we can look into that. What is the difference and why the difference is maybe there's but hold on hold on look before anyone else speaks the chief has something to say we recommended we recommended that you look into this in July yeah hold on Jeff wait a minute

I have spoken to the Rockland fire chief I it was part of the report I had the a lot of the questions that Mac had conveyed to me that came from your committee I asked those questions to Rockland fire chief I included in the comp report if there's more specific questions that you would like asked Jeeoff I would be more than happy to call that chief back if you would forward those questions either myself or Mac so he can get them to me. I'll call back and ask any question of the Rockland chief that you want. But I had a very long conversation with that chief and it should have been in the comp report that I had provided to Mac and Mary for your listening group. So if there was something I missed, I apologize, but I gladly follow that if you did it. And the question was, why is the cost

on one building so different than the others? We just asked it and and it was recommended that an architect that's worked with them just talk to them. That's all I'm recommending. I I can have some input in three months. Thank Mary. Thank you. That's all. Thank you. And we'll move to Mark. Oh, okay. Okay. Hold on. We have Becky in the room. Do you want to go first? Yes.

Yeah. Thank you. I just um you know, I'm here about this Monday group, but the Monday group was not appointed by the board of selectmen to make the decision. You all were decided. This Monday group has gone rogue and it's a number of people who you figured needed to come together and chat and feel good about it. But you all were appointed to make the decision to report to the select board on what pos what was the best place for a fire station, not the Monday listening group. And on was a member and he would tell you the same thing. So, I think you all need to make the decision and great, let them send emails, but they're not part of this committee. Okay. And then we have Mark Barbadero again. Uh,

oh, okay. Is there anybody else? He hasn't spoken. He has already spoken. So, I can I ask the chief a question? Yes. Mr. Chief, is it not true that over in Rockland they started with a much more expensive station in the order of something like 33 million and they were able to reduce the cost dramatically because the town promised the fire department they would build a second station. That's is that not true? That's that's not true.

Okay. It's not that they promised a second station and said this the the need for a second station has been recognized and there's been talk about moving towards it. So that is what made the reduction in the size of the station that they have agreed upon now uh so whatever more palatable to the fire department is because they know that the towns recognize the need for a second and are willing to start the discussions of moving toward it. So whatever they cut out of this $33 million building, they expect to replace and put in a second building when the time comes. There's been no promise, no guarant. It's just been recognized as a need and that there's been some type of verbal commitment. My understanding is to move towards that.

Thanks for the clarification. But that explains why there was a dramatic cost reduction is quite a bit of the program was probably removed from the building. Mark, can you say what you need to say in one minute? Sure can. Okay.

Want to thank the chief for pointing out that the map does not show the flood zones. Uh, you know, you guys actually should show the correct map so that people can actually visually see the comparison between 1300 and 502. In fact, the members themselves should look at it before making decisions like that. And then lastly, please figure out whether or not you can put that fire station in with the cuts that are necessary at uh 72 Stow Road. Don't just take uh an architect saying I think it can work. Do a little investigating and figure it out. That was what was requested of the Pari report and the HKT study. They both said if you can't figure out if those are redoxorphic soils that are resulting in the high groundwater um you may not be able to build there and you guys I've told you this many many times and we're just not moving forward. I understand you're run yourselves out of money studying 502 that's as as you're

after the 14th that may be a moot point so I don't think we have to talk about it anymore.

I need to say something. And I'm sorry. It is inappropriate to be calling out professionals, discarding or disregarding their opinions. It's inappropriate to be calling out employees. If you have comments about what we're doing and calling us out, that's fine. But I'm I cannot tell you how disappointed I am that somebody called out a member of the fire department tonight. That is unacceptable. I don't care. I know everyone there's sides and they've been drawn, but to call out an employee of this town on a public meeting, I I I find that to be so disappointing. And again, Jeff Shaw from Context, I don't know why any of the professionals still work for us because all they, you know, constantly being questioned. Again, I appreciate everything they've given us. I feel like they've given us all sorts of, you know, good information and information that we can move forward with. Maybe we just need to show a little respect to the employees, maybe to this committee. I don't even care if you show us the respect and to the to to the professionals that we've hired. I'm sorry, but I just can't. It really bothers me that that happened tonight, especially to one of our firefighters. And I'd like to apologize on behalf of the committee that we allowed that to take place.

Do I hear a motion to adjourn the meeting? So moved. Maria second. Do I hear a second? Second. Second. Okay. Allen second. Um, I'll call for roll call vote. Mary Roland I. Maria. Um, Priya. And I. Allan. Allen. I. Maria. Neil. And I. Mac. I. Okay. The meeting is closed. Thank you.