Fire Station Building Committee - Regular Meeting

[clears throat] Noting the time and the presence of a quorum, I call the Boxboro Fire Station Building Committee to order. We're going to start with um an executive session. And I move to enter executive session to consider the purchase, exchange, lease, or value of real property pursuant to Mass General Law, Chapter 3A, section 21A6, where the chair declares that the discussion in open session may have a detrimental effect on the bargaining position of the town and to review and approve the executive session meeting minutes from November

December 11th. December 11th. Thank you. Um uh which was also held to consider the purchase, exchange, lease or value of real property and to determine uh whether to make them public. Second. Okay. I'm going to take a roll call vote. Larry, am I here or yes? No. This is Oh, you need to start with the Yeah, I will do that when we come in. Right now, we're taking a vote on going into executive session. Yes, Alan. I Priya Sundram. I Maria Neil and I Sarah I Mac [clears throat]

Mac is unmuted. Uh we can't hear you Mac. Okay. I'm going to register that as an abstain and Brolan I and we will reconvene in open session after completion of the executive session. And what are we how are we getting Mac if you can hear us?

Um so Mac, you need to um you can stay on here or not, but Mike's going to call you on your phone to join us in executive session as well as Steve and Jeff if they're online. Okay, so we're going in the other room. All right. Um, we're back from executive session and so we'll move to public input. Um, if there are members of the public who would like to share any input with the committee, um, they can do so at this time or at the end of the meeting, but not both. Um, there's no one in the room. Is there anyone online? Please raise your hand.

Yep. John Markwood says his hand. Um, please unmute John. I just did. He should be able to see. Okay. You should be able to unmute yourself, John. You okay? Yep. There you go. Okay. Yeah. Yes. Um Mary, I just had a question. I know that you've got a lot of work on you got a lot to do tonight and one of the items is talking about special town meeting. Correct. Yes. So, I was just wondering if you're planning to do a presentation about what the program is associated with the fire station. Um, not tonight. We have done that in the past.

So, I don't I don't mean I mean at town meeting. Well, at town meeting I get limited time. Um, so it's it depends. I have not planned that presentation at all. That's March. So that's a February task. Okay. The reason the reason I ask is because you're asking the community for quite a bit of money and I think they they should be told or or the program the overall program should be explained to them. Okay. I will keep that in mind when I'm preparing the presentation. Okay. Thank you very much, Mary. Thank you, John.

Any other public comment? No. All right. I'm going to move us to new business. Um, we have updates on sites under consideration. So, we did get feedback on the analyses we we've done on 984 and 1300. So, I'm going to pass it to Jeff Shaw to update us.

Right. Even good evening everybody. Um we did provide some uh updates on the um analyses that were done by the geotech and environmental mostly environmental um in an email update for everybody. Um but essentially the uh phase one and phase two uh analysis have been completed for both sites and they did not find anything of specific note that we should be concerned about. Anything they found was below reportable levels. So essentially making no further concerns for the um uh environmental engineers who are doing that and that's primarily at 984 massab uh because we did the actual testing there um at 1300 we just did a phase one but again other than the un already understood and known um hydraulic that was cleaned up there's no other uh anything other on on that site that would cause any concerns. Um, we did get the geotechnical results, um, which I think we talked about briefly, but, um, again, there were no, um, major issues there. There are some areas on 984 that have ledge. Um, and there's some potential with the fill that was on the site, um, that we may have to, depending on where the building is designed to be on the site, we may have to do some, um, ground improvement or over excavation and replacing of that material with structural fill. Uh, all of which is a pretty standard occurrence in construction these days. Obviously, it does increase the cost a bit, but the good news is that we have flexibility in where the building can go and so we could design the location of the building to be in the most advantageous spot on the site. Um, but a lot of uh

test bits were done there. So, we do have a fairly good understanding of what's there. Um, and then for 1300, there were no geotechnical um studies done there. So, we don't have anything further to report there. just the previous reports we've done for the civil engineering, the wells and that sort of thing. So, that's the new information that we have.

Thank you. Um, and we've had um we've got construction bids for all three sites. So, Steve, I wonder if you want to walk us through those. Can he not? No, he's unmuted. Mayor, are you talking the uh the Fogerty cost estimates or the total project budget?

I think the total project budget because I know we made some changes in some of Fogert's assumptions and that's built into your total estimate. So I think we should go through the total estimate.

Okay, hold on. Are you going to be able to put that up on that screen too? Or if you take that down, will the Zoom meeting go up there? So it maybe we can see it off the Zoom. I don't think I can. Somehow.

Oh, because you're not you're not Are you on Zoom? Zoom. I'll try getting on Zoom while he starts here and see if we can get I don't care. Just that um Ellen doesn't have a laptop. I could. Can you see that spreadsheet now? Um so who'sever doing this, can you close the participants and that's bigger? Yeah, that's not Yeah. No, I mean I can't see that. And so hold on a second. If you should be able to once Okay. Okay. Hold on. Oh, Mike's going to I see.

Yes. Once he's up there. I just let him in. The share should Oh, we can't make it bigger. You can zoom into it. That's better. That's fine. But yeah. Okay. So then at least it's in the room as well. Yeah. Okay. Now we can see it. Okay. you see all all the um the three uh properties 72, 984 and 1300 Nash. Yes.

Okay. Uh so we got the uh updated cost estimates from AM Fogerty uh on the 22nd of December or um maybe it was a day after or two, but that was that was the date. uh he basically [clears throat] re uh estimated um the the project and had this this is very similar to what we had shown before. This breakout is per their um their breakout on on Fogert's estimate where he takes the construction of the building and then the site work separately and then combines them. uh you know a lot of the the site work information was based on uh the civil um analysis that were done recently and um Jeff provided Fogerty with that information. We got a little bit more solid numbers on the site. Um, as I mentioned or I I want to mention that um the uh 984 and 1300 uh Fog's estimate actually had included a traffic light uh cost which we um I subtracted from from the site costs uh because we've uh previously determined that we were not going to include the traffic signals under this construction project. So I made an adjustment there. Uh another adjustment that was made is in Fogerties because I I believe I believe Fogert's estimates was was um uh issued to all the the committee members. Um he had carried 18 months for duration. Uh we in our working group and our

discussions previously thought that was a little um uh extended. So we reduced the construction duration for 72 Stow Road and 984 Massav to 16 months. We're carrying 17 months on 1300 because we need a month to demolish and remove the existing building. [snorts]

So there there's a difference there. Um there was an increase in the general conditions uh per month also that we we uh uh that was part of Fogert's uh uh newer uh estimates um which we've uh we've included. And then the the percentages of general requirements uh building permits fees being waved, bonds and insurance and profits are all the same. just really sort of calculates through and again you know these are these are conceptual cost estimates you know not a lot of detail on the drawings uh and these are all prevalue engineering numbers. So when we come down to um the the hard cost uh we've got 72 Stow road at 25.6 6 million 984 at 27 million and 1300 as 27.66 million um for your for your basically your raw construction cost. Uh there was some conversation previously about whether any kind of ledge needed to be included and um in Fogert's number they included a an allowance for ledge in both 984 and 1300 again based on the um the civil engineering uh analysis also included uh [snorts] abatement and demolition of the existing buildings inclusive of 1300. All of that is in that number where previously we had been adding those numbers in. And again, these are just, you know, we got more updated information. We're trying to consolidate everything.

And Steve, I know it's much smaller, but do the 72 Stow Road and 984 include demolition of any buildings on those properties? Yes. Yeah. the the the wooden structures are also included in any a small amount for a baitment if it's [snorts] necessary. Yeah.

Um so then you know as as we had discussed on you know previously we we're very interested in going green. So part of again part of Fogert's um cost estimate is the the essentially the upcharge to go to from an air source to a ground source heat pump system. Excuse me. And that's what I'm adding in as alternate one to the construction cost. And these he's loaded those with the markups already. Um so those are added in. Then we we carry our our construction contingency of 5% which is different from from the design contingency which is carried up here. Design contingency is essentially because the the drawings are not fully designed yet. There's not a lot of detail. There's there's a a design contingency for things that need to be put into the into into the uh design itself. And as we go further into hopefully SD, DD and CD, that design contingency will go down because uh Jeff and his team are are adding the detail to the drawings which the estimator can then uh give a much u more solid estimate on on quantities and and u and types of material. But that is different from the construction contingency. We will always carry whatever the whatever the final number is we get from the estimator, there'll be a 5% construction contingency uh added to it. Um on new construction, 5% if we're doing a renovation, we usually go 10%. Uh so that's all included in the hard costs. Uh which now we we come up with 273 for 72, 288 for 9.84, and 295 for,300. Any any questions on the on the hard

cost data? I don't see any. And Max online. So Max, speak up if you have questions.

Going on to the soft costs. Um again, you know, we we had we had soft costs for the construction administration for context and closeout and construction administration for vertex and closeout. We've adjusted those because we did adjust the month and the the uh the numbers are are shown here. Again, uh the the OPM costs usually go higher than the architect's cost during construction because at that point, we have someone that's on the site full-time, 40 hours a week during during the uh construction and close out. [clears throat] Um then and and again, we're into soft cost now. So, you got your your designer fee, your OPM fee, then your other soft costs, and uh I've got financing costs. We've highlighted that because I know Mike was looking into whether that's a good number or not, or whether that that can be adjusted. I I I don't think he has a full answer on that yet.

I'm waiting.

Yep. So, we we've sort of carried this number um uh through the whole job and and and again, if it can it can be adjusted, it will be. But, um I think we've gone through a bunch of these before. We've got moving costs. We've got FF and E costs. Um anything that might already be included in uh the the GC costs, uh we we've noted that. Um but we want to we had it shown before you know a gear extractor, gear dryer, those type of items. Um training equipment. All these numbers have been consistent through for the last few uh times we've gone through this. I'll I'll highlight where we did make changes. Um, we had previously included money for a phase one site assessment, but we've now done that and I've noted that being as being done during design. Um, we've got we've got uh soil testing and monitoring uh borings and test pits. That's that's all all included in u designer fees, seismic monitoring. I think we talked about this at the last meeting. We included it uh acoustical monitoring and seismic monitoring only at 72 because of the abutters. Uh we determined it was not necessary at the other two sites. Um advertisement printing for bidding and bid hosting and electronic uh bidding that's included in our SD to bid document um cost and and not to need to be carried here. We've got uh legal fees, uh ballot fees, uh the building committee meeting minutes, building builders risk insurance. Uh we are carrying uh building envelope and HVAC uh commissioning agents during

construction. Uh fire station alerting system we've had um all along. Uh again, the traffic warning signals, we've taken that out on all street projects. uh as it is uh would if we do it it would be a separate project. Um the green uh we took out the lead portion of green because we're going to design towards green but the geothermal monitoring during construction which is the CA construction administration we do have to include that which is 79,000. Uh the photovotayics uh would be a post construction item with a power purchase agreement of some kind. So we've taken that out of the uh construction cost assessment. We do not want that included uh with the general contractor. It's not a that's not a good way to go. Uh we've got radio equipment. We've got um dumpster for disposal when the we move out of the 50 uh 502. It fiber service is one that we've got updates on. We were carrying money for fiber service, but we've determined that fiber is running [clears throat] in front of each one of these properties and and Verizon would do the tie-ins at no cost. All we have to do is um supply the the 4-in conduit to the pole, which we have in the construction cost. The only caveat is on 1300 there's equipment that would be needed to be removed from the existing building which we're carrying 10,000 for. Uh we've got uh a line item for just some miscellaneous costs at 12,000. Uh mass save. We've got application fees that we'd be doing during design. So we've zeroed that out. Uh we've got um fees for the post occupancy verification

that we're including here in the construction number. Um interior wall murals for the blank walls. We've got numbers for the telephone uh potential for Verizon and a pole fee security owners owner's end of security not the infrastructure audiovisisual by owner not the infrastructure infrastructure is included in construction. uh any type of utility back charges we may get hit with uh for power. Um we never know whether we're going to get that until we start the project. A lot of times we don't get anything and that and that that 40,000 doesn't get charged, but that's what we're carrying now. Uh site permitting fees, we've got 10,000. um the uh peer review uh during uh design. We've taken that out because we've carried it during design. So we've got the other items total for soft cost at roughly 1.48 457. Uh we've carrying the soft cost contingency on the total inclusive of the uh owner and uh the the owner's project management and designer fees. We've got a total soft cost of 3.4 3.37 and 3.5 roughly. Adding the hard and soft costs and then adding the 1% owners contingency, we come down to a total 472 of 31.048 million 984 32 510 and 1333.336. again conceptual cost estimates

um pre- value engineering. Thank you. Um any questions, comments, Steve? Um you mentioned uh the demolition taking an additional month for 1300. We don't expect the same for like I know there's not very a bigger building for 72 and 984 that you think it'll be still within the less than the month time frame. Yeah, those those wooden structures are going to go down very quickly.

Okay. Um I I noticed there's a line item for monitoring during abatement, but is there a line item for doing the actual abatement? That's in the construction cost. Okay. The monitoring is by the by the industrial hygienist. Yes. The the removal is is in the construction cost. Okay. And we don't even know if we need that at this point. Right. We don't. No. Right. Okay. bearing on the side of caution. All right. Um,

so if there aren't any other questions, I think we might go to the site review the site matrix. Mary, could I ask a question? Absolutely.

Um, will there be any process between now and the town meeting that we might talk about that bottom line budget? I'm still hoping that we can get that under 30 million and I'm wondering if there's going to be any kind of a process that we can use to to think about that. Well, um I think we are going to start having conversations after we're ready for town meeting, so late January into February where we can go back to the value engineering conversation. But I am going to say I have I've only done this once before. We didn't value engineer before a building is designed. We value engineered during [snorts] the design phase. During the design phase, there are three times where a cost estimator estimates the cost of the design. And at those times, we then say, okay, this is, you know, at X price tag, we want it to be less. And we value engineer. It's easier to value engineer when you know what you're you have designed. It's hard to take something out of a building if you don't know if it's actually in the building. Um so I think we can have a conversation. I don't think we're going to get to a definitive answer. These are conceptual estimates at this time. Um, I also think that, you know, we're going to we need to tell the community we're going to try to come in under 30 million. And I, in my heart of hearts, I want to do that, but I also don't want to build a substandard building that doesn't meet the needs for what we're trying to do. So, that's the balance we're going to

try to walk from January of 2026 through March of 2027. And then in March of 2027, we're going to have a real bid estimate. Thank you.

Yep. Um okay, so this is the matrix and you'll all see I I sent you the wrong matrix of sorry and I apologize. Um I sent you the updated one late this afternoon and that's what Steve's working with here. So we had scored 72,300 and 984 but I think it would be good to go through it and see now we have more information. Do we want to change any of our scores? So basically go through for 984 984 and 1300. Yeah.

I I think Stow Road we don't have any new information so I doubt we'd be changing it but maybe in conversation we would. So, we they're all open. So, what I'm going to do just to make it a little easier to see, I'm gonna I'm just going to hide these for now for 72. That'll help. Okay. And that uh maybe I can increase this a little bit so we can see everything. So, we we had looked at this before, but you know, it was very I don't it it was high levels before we had some other reports and so forth. So, some of these numbers may stay the same, right? I I think some of them are going to change.

Yeah. And just to confirm for me because I'm a little slow. Column P is 72, right? No. No, he hits 1300 and then and and 984 because 984 was sort of the last one we added to the Okay. to the mix. That's fine because when you go down, I'm going to forget that. So, I'm writing it down so I don't NOP is 1300. QRS is 984. Thank you. Yeah. Okay. So, our first item I can't see the very left column. Can you zoom out on No, he's controlling it. The criteria for the first one is wellwater.

Why can't we see it? You can see it over there. It can't go. I'm over as far as I can go. No, it's not you. It's We're looking at something Mike's showing. Zoomed in too much, Mike. And so it make it 90%. Can you get rid of that little thumbnail on the right and pull that off? He's talking to Mike. No, I can't get rid of that thumbnail. So, um, go to view. Yeah, go to view and see if you can make it smaller. There's a way. There you go. Perfect. Okay, you got it.

That's perfect. So, well water. So we had rated um 1300 as a five and 984 as a four in the past. Well, based on the geotech and civil report that we just got, they said that the existing well may be suitable, but that more than likely we'll find a suitable source on the site. So although we don't have necessarily the well we're going to use the probabilities of finding the well in the sites

was was pretty high versus at 1300 there are well the well was de was sufficient for a a much larger building. So it was figured that it would be sufficient for what we needed which would be less. Right. That one would require decommissioning as a public well. Yeah. and you know setting it up as a private well but I think we could use a lot of the infrastructure probably. So I think that's why we gave that a little bit higher rating at 1300 than 984. So should we change that now that we know that there's but just as a comparison what did we give 72

does anyone have it open so of the it's um 72 was given Uh about three very high, right? Because there's no well there at all. Right. So we we we assumed we could get water. Right. So I'm not hearing any changes to that. Okay. Okay. Then perk test for septic. Both fives. Yep. Both fives. And 72 was three. Okay. Yes.

And there's nothing that indicates that it doesn't perk based on the new information. So, I'd say we keep that. Yeah. All right. I think 72 we we also gave that a five. Let me check. We give that a five because it it perked. No, cuz it had Yes. Yes. It was a five. Oh, yeah. We gave that a five. Oh, I thought you guys said a three. Okay. That was okay. But we did more testing at 72. Right. Right. Okay. We have Wait, wait, wait. Not we don't want to see 75832. No, I I I hit the wrong one. Yep. There we go.

Okay. All right, then. uh geotech survey and borings. Yeah, I think I think we gave um 984 at two because we hadn't done anything yet if I if I recall. So, we were a little unsure. So, it feels like that could go up at 984 because it came out fine. Yeah. So, four or a five?

I don't know. I'm not, you know, I read all that stuff and I don't know. Is that a four or is that a five? Well, Steve, it the report said that they didn't see any Yeah. Um significant issues with with using conventional footings on either of the sites. So, I think uh that they're equal. Yeah. Okay. So well I yeah I would I wouldn't give it a five necessarily because there was the comment about yeah there was potential fill issue. So yeah my recommendation is to give them both fours for different reasons. 984 gets a four because we know we've done the work to know what's there but it's not perfect. Yeah.

Um but it's not bad. It's just slightly less than perfect. And for 1300, while we know anecdotally what's there, we haven't dug anything or bored any holes. So, we're pretty certain it can be done like the existing building has been done. Um, but without further information, we can't test and prove it. So, I give them both. Okay. I agree. Steve, can you just like capture that summary for the explanation for each of those when you finish this up? Okay. Okay. All right. So then response time, we had uh fives for both of those.

Mhm. We had that makes sense. Four for 72. Okay. Right. Which really doesn't Yeah. I don't know why, but because you have to come up onto Massav. Massav. Yeah. Like a little better. Okay. What do we have for GO on 72, Pria? Uh go five. Okay. I was curious for response time for like 1300 mass. It's just like further down, slightly further west. Yeah. So is a lot of our population. When you look at some of the we have multiple housing units, majority of the multiple housing units in a lot of our call volume is further west. Okay.

So I think that it's a play, as I said in previous meetings, it's somewhat of a trade-off. uh whichever way you go, you're going to see better response times obviously for the different. So depending on how you look at it, it's it's a it's a plus and a minus for either section of town. Okay. But overall, you think both sites will [clears throat] meet the minimum requirement? Uh yes, I think that both being on Massav is a major help. It's um I said it we're that much closer to the multiple housing units, but you know, if we're at 94, we're almost back to being somewhat middle to go equal to either side. Yeah.

So, we keep those as fives, folks. Yep. Okay. Supports the fire department program. Um we we're using the same model on all three sites. It fits on all three sites. So, I think we have fives across the board on that. Yeah. Right. Right. Nothing's changed on that. Um, a butter impact. Why did we put a four for 984 on that? Because it has. What's the Oh, because it has the abutters. Yeah. Okay. The the business and and house in the back. Okay. I forgot. Yep. But but based on conversations we've had with the abutters Yes.

they welcome the idea of having a fire station. And so there are butters that are happy to have the fire station there. Yeah, I agree. I'd make that a five. Yeah.

And then 72. We had a four. A four. Okay. I think four is being generous at 72. Honestly, I think we did four relative to 502. But if we think relative to these, do we want to pull that down to a three? Well, based on the feedback that we've gotten from so many people, I think you have to. Yeah. Yeah. It could be a two. I was going to say, would you go lower than a three? I mean, the most time has been spent so far on this committee with a butters that were unhappy with Strut, right? We definitely have to lower it. So, the question is three or two, right?

I think at two is good. Max said that. Yep. Okay. Okay. A two unless I hear differently for STO. That's for 72 Stow Road. Okay. I'll make that change. Um then we have the conceptual estimated total cost. So, um, going back to what Steve just shared, we have 72 at 31 million for, this is just on the construction side, 984 at 32.5 and Massav at 33.3.

Yep. And then there's the the purchase costs which, you know, we we don't have firm um negotiated prices, but we've been talking about 1.2 million at 72 Stow Road, 2.4 million at [snorts] 984, and 4.5 at 1300. So, a five and a four and a three. Wait, wait. A five and a four. So, what's a five? Five. Uh 72. Yeah, three is the lowest cost. Still road is the lowest cost.

Five, four, and three, right? But, but right now we have a one. That's what I'm I'm We didn't have We didn't have any information. So this is our [snorts] So this would be you. This would be three then. Yeah, that would be three. So we And this would be four. Yeah. Right. And I'll change 72 to a five.

Okay. Then we have wetlands survey. Would we change that? I don't know. Anything we saw? The report still talks about it's not in the 100redyear flood plane, but it it's close to the 200 foot river at 1300. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So, I think I'd still keep that a four. 984 seemed to have no wetland issues. Mhm. I had this across the street. Across the street, which could impact So, it could be a buffer issue if it's across the street. Yeah. Yeah.

Um, but we should know that. We should be able to look at that from the I I think that like based off of the site plan that Jeff sent over with it like sitting on it, it looked like it was away from that, well out of that. That's unless a new wetland survey would show that it drastically.

Well, we should have that information because right directly across the street is 975 and they've been in site plan review. So, there's got to be that information somewhere in town hall, right? There's got to be a map that shows where the wetlands are and where the wers are. We do have um it's hard to see on the on the little design sketch that we sent, but the 100 foot wetlands buffer is depicted on the site. It's probably I don't know about 20 feet maybe over the property line at its worst case. Um and we would not it would not really impact the design or the building or any of the utilities. If anything, it would only impact how we're approaching NASA if we have landscaping or things like that in that buffer zone. So, I don't think it's really a factor.

Okay. Okay. [snorts] So, should we make those even? No, because wait, this first one is four. Yeah, that that's 1300. Yeah, that's fine. Okay, this is good. Yeah. So, keep four and five. And what did we have stowed us? Five. Yeah, because there's no wetlands on there. Well, there's that corner on the driveway, right? But we already but that totally doesn't affect right where you know the design. No we have that as a five. Okay. Then we have traffic study vehicle access sight line safety. So that's a five. That has both of them are five. Yeah. And not 72 is also five. Okay. Yep.

Good. That's good to know. uh sustainability. Oh, we didn't have that info either, right? Like across uh Yeah. So, I don't know that we've done this assessment. Yeah, we should probably So, all three of them are threes. Three. Yeah. But, uh right now, um 72 is a one is a one. Yeah. Yeah. We should change that to a 32. Yeah. Okay. Three's across. We didn't have to. Yeah. I think the reason that 72 is at three is because it was sort of untouched land based on impact.

1400 and 984 both have existing impacts that um you know from from u commercial use or industrial use that we would simply just be converting into. Yeah. There was trees that needed to be cut on on 72. Cool. So, I think they are there is a significant difference between 72 and these other two sites that shouldn't be eliminated from this. Yeah. Um, and I think on all the sites, geothermal will work. I don't think there'd be any problems with any of the sites. Do you want to make it 233? Sure. Yeah. Right. 233. That makes more sense. Yeah.

Okay. Okay. Then special site considerations. Well, we had we had the building demo for 1300. We had the retaining wall and fill for 984 and 72. We had a four. Yep. And that was because of the scenic stone wall. But didn't we talk about the wall? But these are these are economic issues. And so hasn't the economics already been picked up in the construction cost? Yes. I mean,

well, but it's a it's a evaluation criteria. I guess you could eliminate it. Totally. It's a redundant. It's We're not even near it. I mean, we we to we we do we did this every time.

I know. We do this every time. A number of these also have economic issues. We can decide to make this not count by making them all the same. We could decide that the there's an issue of special site considerations above and beyond economic costs. Um we could put zero weight and take it out. There's a number of things, but I would say the retaining wall and fill is not an issue from the subsequent analysis analyses we've done. Yeah. So that should get if we keep it that should get a higher score. Yeah.

The other thing I would add Mary to that is that I think originally we started conceiving of this as being something of unusual risk. No, we knew we accounted for the cost but there's some unknown risk that we're accounting for but not obviously fully because we don't know what the risk is yet. So this sort of captures that maybe there's extra risk in one or multiple of these sites that we should be aware of. Yeah. So but but the two for 984 had to do with the retaining wall. It had to do with the retaining wall before we had data on it. Right. But now we do have the data. Correct.

And that's not as bad as we thought it was going to be. Correct. So okay. So we're making that a three. All right. I just I'm sorry. Just it's getting a little lost in the numbers here. Okay. We had Stow Road as a four. I I'm just going to say, do we want to make that a three or a four? And I mean, I guess there's still some risk with 1300 because the building's there. There's some abatement in the budget, but there could be a higher risk. Yeah. Taking that building down. What's in it? Yeah. It's the size of the building. So, you can keep the trepidation. 433. You want to keep the three for 98 materials. It'll cost more.

Larry and Alan, one meeting. They're much older construction or one. Wow, you guys can't even hear me. [laughter] One meeting. Please comment out to everyone what you're talking about. Isn't uh the issue with the demolition the same on all three sites, but on 1300 because it's a bigger building, it's more of an issue, but they don't have like the retaining. I mean, the it's it Well, it depends on what the risk is of the building. So, we have a cost to demo all the buildings. There's a a risk that there's asbestous.

Yeah. Is that risk greater at 1300 than at the other sites? We We have more cost in there. Is are we at risk there? I don't know. Jeff.

Yeah. I mean, based upon the base of the building, you would think there wouldn't be that much risk there, but because of its size, whatever we find, uh, potentially there could be a lot of it. um if we did find something. So the unknown is is the unknown for a good reason. I don't know. Um and so I would say that that's your that's one of the risks at 1300. The other risk might be, you know, the site's more wet than we really thought it would be. Um, and that might be another concern that we have to do

more expensive septic. Um, and because it's a mounted system or something like that, I don't think it would mean it would be impossible. It just wouldn't change those other ratings you gave it. It' just be a risk that we're facing. Uh, for for 984, you know, of course, those little buildings could have plenty of stuff in it. Um, but they're also small, so the amount of it probably wouldn't be as much. Um, but that's certainly an unknown. I think though we've done a lot of dug a lot of holes in the ground uh to see what we can find. Uh, I think Mary would would be the first to tell you that where you dig the hole doesn't necessarily mean you're going to find all the stuff. So, there's certainly potential for more there, but that's potentially true on any of the sites. Um and like you said, they think we've kind of extinguished some of the challenges from the so-called retaining wall um area there which may previously have been a concern. But there is the you know the ledge that's there. We know where it is but it's there and there is the areas of fill which might cause the foundations to be a little bit more expensive. um here as well. Um we have a little bit better understanding about that now because we've done the the due diligence, but there's still a level of risk that the numbers cost estimates that we have so far don't fully capture.

So given that, do we want to keep those both at threes and 72 is a four? I'm seeing a lot of heads nodding. Okay. Um zoning that's we had fives for both site and for and for 72 and 72. Okay. No changes there. A butter impact during construction. What was 72? Three. We had a three. And we thought that 1300 would be fine and 984 would be fine. is really what's that on 984

should be four at some point they're not going to have easy access because of the road issues right and we're talking about and they're the abotterers and there's also two businesses there right one one business one business because one business is on the property that we would be right constructing on and then a couple homes right three houses three three who currently are in favor of this. So I know we can make it a four if because there is some impact. It is a four. Four and a five. Looking at the wrong row. It's a five and a four. I think we should leave it. Yeah. Okay. Um and leave 72 at a three.

Yeah. Yeah. Okay. And then communications. The chief was going to check. Yeah. There hasn't been any problems in any of the locations. No, there would be no problem with communication. Okay. That should be five across then. Five across. What is it right now? We have four at 72. Yeah. So, do you want to make that a five?

I I can't remember why it was given a four to begin with. Um, we don't have we were just transmitting from there today. We had a call right across the street and they had no problems with the radios whatsoever. So I can't imagine I don't recall why we made it a four. Yeah. The note the note chief on that we had for 72 on on-site radio field test performed by BFD clear signal but we we did give it a four. So they I think there may have also been a concern for getting the fiber loop there for communicate direct communications but I think Mike has also confirmed we can get to all the sites with the fiber loop. Okay. But we should just make that up five. So we should do all five. So we should make all of those five.

So to to go back to a butter input during construction, yeah, impact. Um the only time that there'll be significant impact at 94 is when Sarah's way is worked on, which will be a couple months. Once that's done, whether it's the beginning of the project or the end of the project, the other times it's no different, right? So it's it's to a very few number of individuals over a relatively short period of time. It's not 16 months, right?

So it it doesn't I mean if it it's not equal, but the way that this is weighted, it makes a big difference from a four to a five or a three to a four. It's it's so it just seems that it's it's not fairly waiting. It has some impact, but it's not a significant impact is the point I'm trying to make. Yeah. Isn't it five points different? Uh a better impact. Yeah. Because this now is three. [clears throat] Yeah. It's a weight of five. Is that right? No, that's the score. Yeah. I mean the weight

that's the weight right it's a weight of five so and what was the waiting on cost 10 but we you know we say that but I I know it's a smaller number of butters but they're on a hill overlooking the site and dust is coming up and there's going to be some throughout the whole process the worst of it it's going to be when you're working on Sarah's way right um and but you're going to have noise you're going to have you know it They they they the guys show up at 6:30 every day. I mean, that's all part of Yeah. a Butter impact. I I

We're not using these scores like we're just taking the highest. It's just a guide. So you we can keep that in mind when we're looking at the totals as well because I think they're coming out very close. But So can we see the totals? Can you open up? Is that 72 now that you have open? I I'm updating.

Okay. Update and then we'll look at the scores. Okay. [clears throat] 42. So 72

442 1300 is 444 and 984 is 462. So 1300's come up just above a little bit of 72. But yeah, and I think that's primarily the above issue there. Right. Right. And cost and cost and 984 is above both of those. So

um Okay. Any other questions, comments on this? because then I want to discuss [clears throat] the sites and what people think about them and you know where we are. We we want we need to pick a site by Thursday. Um we have a meeting to do that. We um I mean these scores show that we have three sites that are pretty good with different pros and cons across each site. So thoughts

on the matrix or on the sites? Are we moving on? [clears throat] If you have comments, questions on the matrix, this is the time to say it because then we're going to be done with the matrix. Speak now or forever hold your peace. Except for Larry. He's been holding his piece for months. [laughter] Um, okay. So sites, let's talk sites.

If we had to choose uh between the old 502 and 1300, I think I would weigh toward 1300. But the cost of that site compared to the other two candidates that we just reviewed seems to be out of line and isn't better site necessarily than 98472. So based on the excessive cost of that site and the unknown demolition and the septic issue and getting rid of a public water supply which seems to be a a logistical headache perhaps I don't have any interest in 1300 anymore.

Okay. Other thoughts? I mean, from the money perspective, I can't I mean, all the rest of the stuff you listed, but the cost differential is significant. Yeah. Because we have two other very viable sites that are cheaper that are less expensive. Yeah, absolutely. So, I agree with with Allen in that Larry,

I like the visibility and location of 1300. Um, but I agree that it's going to serve the town as well to be on um Massav at at the 784 site for several million dollars less. Um, and if we work on the the program and value engineering, we may add even more to the $7 million less. So, um I think we can take 1300 off the list.

Mac,

I would agree with that. I it seems that at 72 even though we've we believed and we still believe that's a viable site the issue uh we obviously have a concern about the butters uh from a practical standpoint we also have a concern that whether or not there will be enough of those butters that will um not vote to support the u the money when it when that comes up. So there are two strong reasons why that is probably not the strongest. I agree with what everybody said about about 1300. I like that. I I think given everything or given the same amount of money, I probably would uh be in support of 1300 because of its visibility and being near 495 and people have talked about that's closer to the population center even though it's not closer to the number of houses in town. Uh but it for that much more money, it just is not viable, I don't think. So I I am also in favor of 984 and and feel good about what we've heard about that site over the last month. Um took away a lot of our concerns. So I I I would I would vote to to uh take 1300 off as well.

Alan, is it premature to make a motion? Nope. I make a motion we cease further discussion and interest in the 1300 Massab property and let the seller of the property know that uh we have no further interest. Second. Okay. So Allan moved and Maria seconded. Any other discussion on that? I'm going to take a roll call vote. Larry I. Alan I. Pria Sundam I. Maria Neil I. Sarah I Mac I and Brolan I. So that's unanimous.

Okay. So that leaves us with two properties to be considering as we move forward. Is there any other discussion people want to have tonight about the two properties? I want to reinforce something that Larry has said a couple of times.

Okay. And the word that he uses is visibility. And 984 is going to provide maximum visibility of the town's $30 million investment. When it's off on a side road, people probably forget that it's there and they don't realize what they bought for the $30 million unless they make an effort to go see it. But if it's right on Route 111, the $30 million is in your face every time you drive to Route 495. You can't miss it. It also means that people that aren't familiar with our town and need to find the fire station are likely going to run into it a lot easier if it's on Massav than it would be down a side street. So from the visibility perspective, I've reinforced what Larry has said a couple of times that it's the biggest investment this town's ever made. Let's put it in our face so we can see what we bought.

You don't think it's gonna make them angry to look at it all the time? [laughter] I hear that. I mean, I personally don't think 72 Still Road is so far off that it I think it's going to be very noticeable if it were there. Um, but I hear that. Yeah. Yeah. I I still think that like 984 we when you look at the cost comparison to acquire them it's it's still 984 is double the cost of 72 road and we heard from half the town that cost is a factor. Yeah. Yeah. And then it's even more when you look at the site costs. Right.

Right. So the site costs cost more. My quick math takes it to a differential of about 2.6 6 million and I'll we'll bring that next on Thursday. So we have that but yeah it's you know it's why we asked the question and town meeting was 5050. I mean it was literally like five point five point difference. It was and couldn't get closer. I don't want people who want a low cost to say well you immediately have to cut 2.6 million out of the building.

Yeah. because then I would go to the lowest acquisition side and you know save the cuts because we want to maintain as much of the program as we can. So that's where the challenge is and the balance is yeah I don't I'm not quite ready to go to a let's get to one tonight. I I need like until Thursday. Um my concern is 72. That is the ideal location. That is the ideal cost. Maybe not the ideal location. Yes, it's lovely if it was on Mass. It's not. But costwise, yeah,

you know, and the property itself. So, I'm still not quite ready to say, you know, let's give up the ghost here. I'm just not quite there yet. I promise I'll figure it out by Thursday. [laughter] Okay. All right. So, I'm going to move us to the site design and bid estimate, which was in your packet. Um, but Jeff or or um Steve, I would love for one of you to run us through that estimate. Okay. Uh, give me a second.

I don't think I warned you guys how much I was going to ask you to pull up and talk. Oh, I figured we'd touch on everything. Um, let me see. Can you see that?

No, not yet. Oh, okay. Not at all. All right. There we go. There we go. Now it's coming in. Okay. Well, hold on. All we can see is a It's a green screen right now. Your background. [snorts] Oh, I'm waiting for you to come out and do the weather. Let's see. When we said we wanted to go green, this wasn't what [laughter] we know.

How's that? Got it. That's good.

Okay. The twist. Um, so this really hasn't sure I got the right one. It hasn't changed much um since last time we went over it. Um, excuse me. You got 72 Stow Road, 1300 Massav, and 984 Massav. across the top. Your first section is your architect engineer fees broken into SD, DD, CD, FF, and E pre-qualification of of contractors and bidding, which uh for all the sites are are the same along with the $5,000 reimburseable allowance. Uh also uh we we discussed last time adding the sustainability number for 272,000. And then there are a number of of of add-ons that um we're including for community outreach materials and attendance of 10,000. Uh hazmat survey and design a contingency 10,000. Again, this is all during design, not construction. A number of things are already included in in the numbers which I've noted. Uh the uh the well design engineer contingency for the private well 10,000 across the board. Again, a number of items that we had carried uh separate numbers for before that are now included or are no longer applicable. Um the uh the technical FFN design for your fire station alerting system and radios. Uh we've got 20,000 across the board. the acoustical design and testing which

I mentioned during the construction we have 20,000 only for 72 because of the proximity of the abuters and then um the uh peer review uh redesign in case places which is the peer reviewer uh requires uh redesign uh for something we carried 10,000 across the for uh pre-bid soil testing. Uh we have uh 10,000 at uh 72 and 1300 uh but not um not 984 cuz we did it um mass dot fees and contingency because we do have to um uh deal with them. Well, I guess I guess 1300 we don't really have to talk about at this point. But um we would on on 984 especially if we're um entering uh directly onto Massav. Then the we have the OPM fees that are are basically the same across the board during design. Uh we have um our SDDDC pre-quall and bidding. Um no leadup charge. uh the bid hosting electronic bidding third-party cost estimates that's your SDDD and CD uh are our separate cost estimate that we'll compare with context and do a reconciliation at three points uh community outreach for us uh if if it's used and then uh uh 5,000 reimburseables if we have anything. Uh and then there was some other soft costs. We've got some printing costs, advertisement, uh minutes again uh for for the for the

committee meetings. Um the the planning board in Hong Kong peer review costs from places. Uh legal costs. Uh commissioning, we're not doing any commissioning pre-bid. Uh mass save fees, that's that was for our initial application. uh permitting. We've determined that those are waved by planning in concom uh you've got 5,000 for ballot fees and then any kind of utility design fee that we may get hit with uh which sometimes Verizon will come up with carry 10,000. Um again if we don't these are line items we don't use um they they they don't get charged anywhere. So we have a subtotal for the three sites. Oh, sorry, two sites now. Um, and then we put a 5% contingency on it. So 72 is 2 uh 781 and 984 is 2.765.

So I have a comment and a question. Um if you go well just to clarify this does not include construction administration correct. Okay. So this is not total fees. So we'll see those fees those fees were later they'll be rolled into construction. Those were in the construction that we just looked at those previously. Right. And the other thing just for the committee's benefit and others, if you go to the top, the biggest numbers obviously are the architecture and engineering fees.

Steve, just give us a rundown. What are the range of consultants that are included in those numbers? It's just not context. There's quite a number of other consultants. Yeah, it's your structural engineer, your civil engineer, your mechanical, [clears throat] electrical, plumbing, and fire protection engineer. um your your FFN design which that may be in house for context. Um uh Jeff who am I forgetting? Um landscape architect. Yeah. Yeah. Landscape architect. Um code consultant. Code consultant. Cost estimator. Cost right.

Geotech. I don't you may mentioned that already. The geothermal if we need that. Well design in the 272. Right. Yeah. So, I'm assuming that at this point those consultants aren't selected. You're carrying budget estimates, but

no, we have a full we have a full team of consultants already pre-selected and have gotten proposals, hard proposals for the project and that's all what these fees are based on. So, if there was a vote to proceed and all everything was going forward um and we had a site, there's the possibility that those fees could be tightened up a bit if there was more specificity. But, um the fees that were were put together were based upon 984 because at the time it was thought to be the most complex from the site perspective. Um, it's whether that's true or not, I guess now is maybe a little bit more debatable, but at the time the fees were being put together, that was thought to be probably the the probably the most expensive of the three sites to engineer. And so that's what we figured, you know, would be the worst case scenario from a budget standpoint. So, more than likely, these are probably going to be what the fees are. But, um, if anything, they would they would go down from here. They wouldn't go up. Well, probably not important at this point, but at some point we'd like to see the whole list of consultants and their fees, but not important now.

Okay, other questions, comments.

That'll be information that would be included in the amendment that we would issue. So what we would do for town meeting for the March 9th is if we pick one site, we'll go with the cost for that site. If we pick two sites, we'll go with the higher cost, but I think we still haven't talked about the order. So maybe we'll talk about that. If we did it last, then we can amend it down to the lower cost if we've got an agreement to buy a site. Um, yeah. So, that's what I'm thinking. Unless people think differently.

That makes sense. And would the select board um be willing to do it in the order that we are thinking? I I would we can make the recommendation. It's their decision in the end. But um if we had a good rationale, they would probably I mean it almost So here's something to consider. If we don't pass 2/3 to buy the property, do we pass over and we're done with town meeting and we don't even bring the because it we can't design on a piece of property we don't own, I think. Yeah. So we have to own the property before we do the design. Yeah. So that would be the suggestion to the select board.

Yeah. Which I think we're reasonable. [laughter] Um and I think that's the important part to let people know it's 2/3 on both. Right. Right. Okay. Um thank you. That was really helpful. Um so I'm going to move us to special town meeting. So, we have special town meeting on March 9th, which means we do make need to make our final decisions and votes this Thursday, January 8th. Um, I know we've also set the date for the ballot vote. [snorts] And is that March 17th? Yes.

Tuesday, March 17th. So, as Maria just said, well, so at town meeting, both a land purchase and the design fees would need to pass with a twothirds vote and they would also be they're debt exclusion. So, they would require a ballot vote and so we would h hold a ballot vote on March 17th um because we would want to have the work start right away if it all passes. Um because we know time is money. If the if it doesn't pass at town meeting, do we just cancel the ballot vote? Yeah, there's no point at that point.

Um

so Mary, remind us again the sequence at town meeting in terms of the land acquisition. So that's for us to decide and that's what I want to ask you right now. Um it if we bring one property forward would we do land acquisition ask the select board to put land acquisition as article one and the design fees as article two. If we put two properties forward, would we go our preferred property first, our second choice second, and design fee third?

But h how does that work in terms of you're voting for each one individually? Right. So, let's say we bring 984 up first. Yeah. And that is a favorable vote to acquire the land. 2/3 vote, right? Two3 vote. Then we pass over the other piece of land 72 and then we go to the design fees and we use the price that is for 9.84. Yep.

So, I think when we on Thursday when we select what property or properties we're putting forward, if we put two forward, we want to decide on the order. Um, and then to me it makes sense to do no matter what to do design fees last among our articles. Yeah, that's right. Because if the land doesn't happen by twothirds, there's no point in voting design fees, right?

We're not missing something, right? Because I feel like the the last special town meeting that we went to before this last one, we didn't play all the pros and the cons out ahead of time or the first the first No, we did. It was just the problem with that was was whatever it was. It was zoning. That was the issue.

The zoning. Yeah. So that's what we missed. That's what we missed going into it. And then the the noise around the zoning is what affected that vote. There's no noise around this. This is pretty straightforward. We have two pieces of property and design fee or we have one piece of property and design fee and there's no there's no other there's no zoning issues. There's you know those that's it. The concern of the community is the total cost,

right? And hopefully before March 9th, we can come in and say, "Well, our conceptual estimates are X. We're going to work to get it down by 2 million, 4 million, whatever we think." And that's the conversation to have before March 9th and it'll be in the presentation. But um yeah, but it's the next step we need to take is land and right prop uh land and design. And we're talking through the order the la that meeting you're talking about that the order was being discussed that night at night, right? So it's like we're talking about the order of it and so I don't think we're missing

we didn't discuss that. So um so it sounds like everyone we're in favor of requesting that the design fees go last. Okay. So I will share that with the select board. Consider it shared. Um consider it done. magic.

Fantastic. So, I do have draft um recommendations. So, we've already drafted the Warren articles. I took exactly what we've approved for the article and the summary, but then added recommendations. Um I it's 9:00. I think Thursday is going to be a big night with dis big decisions. So, if we had the energy to go through some of these, it would be good to do it now. So, the recommendations for the two properties, I don't remember. Oh, yeah. Are they the similar? They're the same, right? I mean, a recommendation doesn't change based on those. The wording is essentially the same. Essentially the same. Yeah.

It the recommendations are not exactly the same. No, the articles are bottom of the summary. Say again. a teeny bit of difference in the language at the bottom of the summary for the for the land at the bottom of the summary. Y All right. But we had already

So at 72 Stow Road for both of them, we move that the town will raise appropriate transfer funds. We'll say the dollar amount appropriate, the address appropriate, the assessor's map, acreage appropriate. We explain in both that it's the land acquisition costs and related expenses because there's a cost to the town to buy property and the purpose is to construct a new firehouse and we explain all of that. So that's the same. The summary um we we're authorizing property purchase of property at the two different locations as a site for a new firehouse. Um the parcel both parcels allow for effective emergency response coverage and response times. The appropriation of X would cover the cost of the property acquisition and related expenses. Um this article funds only the purchase of the land. A separate future town meeting would be required to fund construction. So that's essentially the same.

There is excuse me. Yeah. Wouldn't it also fund the design? And no, this article does not fund the design. It's a separate article. This is just for the purpose. No, but where you say a separate future town meeting vote would be required to fund construction, it also would first fund the design, would No, we're going to fund the design hopefully at the town meeting we're at. Okay. Yeah. Up to bidding. Right. Up to bid through bidding. Through bidding.

So then I offered draft recommendations. So let's look at 72. A after considerable evaluation and analysis of 19 sites, the fire station building committee is bringing forward. We're going to decide on Thursday one or two properties for town meeting to vote on. The FSBC has put significant time and effort into the site selection. Overall, we evaluated 19 properties for the prop for the project. After initial assessment, we assessed five properties in depth including 98472 Stow Road, 1300 Massav, 700 to 832 Massav, and 502 Massav on 14 criteria including total project costs, how well the site could meet the operational needs of the fire department, the impact to a butters and sustainability. That paragraph is similar in both recommendations. Then based on these criteria and all the data provided to us, we feel strongly that 72 road offers an excellent solution for the town. The property acquisition cost and estimated build cost is the least expensive option of all those evaluated costing approximately $ million less than the next least expensive option. Now we could here we could be more specific than 984.

Yeah. The downside to this location is the concern of a butters, but the FSBC with guidance from the town's OPM and architect feel we can build in mitigation strategies to minimize noise, light, and other operational concerns. Based on all these factors, the fire station building committee recommends this purchase. So, um, [clears throat] did you list out all of those addresses for a reason? Because when I read that, I tried to read it as not somebody who's been doing this for way too long, but, you know, kind of just somebody who gets it in the mail and reads it. Um, does that become more complicated when you list it all out and then I I don't What do you think?

It's a good question there. I'll tell you why I did it, but we don't have to stay this way. So, I even you'll see I repeated 19 sites. So one of the criticisms has been you haven't looked at enough sites. Yeah. So I'm trying to say we've looked at a lot of sites and then assessing five in depth is saying and we looked at five deeply not just a cursory glance. And so um but maybe we don't need to actually list the properties or we throw it in a parentheses so it's less distracting. I don't know if we ever use footnotes in recommendations. We can write them any way we want, right?

Yeah. Yeah. So, we could do a little asterisk and say what those are. We can drop it all together. Um [clears throat] I I know we want to be transparent, but but like I said, when I read that and I thought, okay, I'm a lay person reading this. I don't know anything about this. Do we just is that just bring up that noise factor that I was talking about earlier? [clears throat] Right. But I might be that might just be me. I don't know how anyone else read that. I like that you listed them

because a lot of the folks in town have followed us early on wondering about certain sites. So if you don't list the ones that we did the in-depth study, I wonder how many people say, "Well, I wonder about the site that they looked at early on. Whatever became of 502, whatever, you know, did they ever look at that as seriously?" Yeah. Not a hill I'm going to die on. I'm just throwing it out there. If everyone else is okay with it, fine. Are there other points you would take out of this recommendation or add to this recommendation about 72? And it could be you need to wait till Thursday till we know. We need to wait till Thursday. Yeah.

To know specifically and then think about I think this is our recommendation. The finance committee will have a recommendation. the select board will have a recommendation and it will be you know finance committee will be based on the dollars and um you know select board will be kind of more of an overview and so I think we don't need to do you know we don't have to do too much in the recommendation I think it just needs to be what we looked at and how we got here

I I also feel like if we put two forward on Thursday somehow we need to say which one we prefer if if the committee has a preference because it will be a little bit confusing for for voters until it's explained to them. Hopefully, they'll come to our public forums. Hopefully, they'll read material, but I do feel like it could be confusing if we look at the 984 and the last paragraph. So I did a similar based on these criteria and all the data provided to us we felt strongly that 984 Massav offered an an excellent solution for the town. The property acquisition cost and estimated build cost is approximately and this could change because that will change. I have that number wrong 3.9 million more. It's actually right now it's looking like it's 2.6 six

million more than the least expensive option than here we would say than 72 Stow Road. Um but the 984 Massav property is conveniently located on Massachusetts A and does not have a group of abutters advocating against this location. Additionally, there have been ongoing noise and dust issues with the butters related to the current business operations at this site that would be alleviated with the purchase of this site for a firehouse. Based on all these factors, the fire station building committee recommends this purchase.

I'm not sure we should put in I I don't know about putting in the current issues with the builder. I'm not sure how that helps us with our recommendation. Okay. I don't think it does. Um, and somehow, you know, to say, um, let's see. And doesn't have an ongoing have a group of abutters advocating against it. I mean, let's be honest, that's a very polite way of saying what we we're facing, right? I didn't want to minimize the the abuters at 984. So, but they're not advocating against. So, that's why I phrase it that way. But maybe that's not the best way to

What if you just said is conveniently located on Massachusetts Avenue in a non-residential neighborhood and then let people for themselves decide why does she say that? Why is that important? Yep. Rather than remind everybody that there's a group of folks that aren't happy with the least expensive site. Yep. I like that. Or if we're going to remind people of that, we're not going to use a nice word about advocating. And I mean there's truly I would take out the word advocating and say a group of abutters against you know the 72 the least expensive. I mean they're against it. They're not politely advocating. We were threatened with a lawsuit. Well that [laughter] but that is advocating. I mean well I guess so. I mean that sounded a little more like a threat than advocating but you know. Yeah. Mary.

Uh yes Matt. Mary I I think that that issue should be decided on whether or not we put forward two sites or one. If I think that would be worded differently depending on which we do. Yes. If we put forward two sites, I think it's fair to say that the reason if we're if in fact that we advocate for 984 that one of the main reasons is because of the significant amount of butters concerned. If if we only put to to forward 984, I don't think we need to say it so specifically.

Okay. So, I'm going to take out the sentence on additionally there have been ongoing noise, dust issues, etc. And then I'm going to leave it and we're going to word smith it once we've made our decision. So, [snorts]

um okay. Then, uh there's one final one that is the new firehouse design and bid funding. And again, we we've looked at the motion. We've looked at the summary. It's the recommendation that I want you to look at, which says, "After considerable evaluation, analysis of 19 sites for viability, the fire station building committee is bringing forward one or two properties for town meeting to vote on. The FSBC has put significant time and effort into site selection. Overall, we evaluated 19 properties, blah blah blah. That's all the same, I guess. Um,

and I'm not sure here we need that because you've already said it. Yeah. And it's one that article is coming after you don't we don't want it to read like you just changed the last line of the recommendation. Right. So I think you can stop at we evaluated 19 sites and with four of them being in depth or whatever. Okay. I don't think we need I personally don't think we need trim that down but then [snorts]

Okay. Um, although the costs are high, we have learned from experience that construction costs continue to accelerate. So, a project like this will only cost more in the future. Current escalation costs are approximately 4 to 5% per year, subject to change with future construction market conditions, and our assessment of the current firehouse clearly shows that we need a new firehouse now. Thus, we recommend that town meetings support this request for X dollars. Now, this is what we had. This is based on what we had last time, but I don't know. I don't love the although the costs are high. I don't either, but I'm not making a great ad person.

I'm gonna I'm gonna work on this and bring back something. Work on this. Okay. So, we're not going to vote that. So, um, [snorts] open up my agenda. Then the only other thing in preparation for a special town meeting is our public outreach. And now it is getting closer. It is.

We have um, Winterfest. We got a gorgeous mailing in the mail with info on Winterfest and a lot of other town things which I loved and is on my bulletin board. Um, and it is the 31st, I believe. Saturday the 31st. Yep. So, we're going to have a table there. And I know I'm going to be there. I think Sarah and Pria. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. And so, we'll prep some handouts, one or two for that. Um, and then we have the um forum the Wednesday before that. Yeah. Right. Yeah. I got to find my date. I feel like it's been forever since we've met.

January 28. 28th. [laughter] Y um at 11 and 7. 11 and 7. Y 11 and 7. And they're both here. Y and both hybrid. Yep. We just need to figure out what we want to say and we have time for that, right? Um but you know what kind of presentation we're going to do, right? So um and it's a ballot question so we have to be careful about advocating. Very careful. It'll be I mean we will be talking about what each article is. So it'll be the two or three articles. Um I think we can provide information from the matrix information on the sites. um the tax information that we have

tax. Yeah, we have to change that chart. Yep. And based on what John Marowitz said earlier, I should pro we should probably have some slides on the program. Yeah. And so how do how do we do that? When you say some slides, it's like a it's a lot to put into some slides, right? It's a it I mean it was a presentation unto itself. We did it as a forum much earlier, but there's a part of me that thinks I I I tend to be very um

very structured in how I do things. I think that this might need to be communicated a different way. So, it might be like here's a room, here's who's using it and for what, you know, rather than I think I did a whole size space thing. Yeah, you did like kind of this and I had a map. And maybe I don't do all those maps, but I just talk about what's the importance of the different offices, the meeting room, the decontamination space, the storage space, the the what's going to be in the garage in, you know, in the bays

and and maybe so the big thing I keep hearing, not from a lot of people, but there's a few people that continue to say, "Well, that's so much more space than we have now. Why can't we just expand a little?" like why do we need to be that big? So, I think it's here's all these spaces. Here are all these spaces we don't have now and here's why we need them. I I would rather um you know I think people would rather hear that. Why do we need a triage room? Why do we need you know office space? Why do we need a why does everybody need a separate bedroom? Why can't we all bunk together like you know in the old days when we were watching TV and everyone was in a big bunk room and that kind of thing, right?

Yeah. There's I struggled with this the last time I did this too. There are requirements around what you must have and there and and the size of some of it. Some of it's driven and I don't know that enough to put it in a short presentation. Um so I don't probably does. Yeah. I don't know if that's something you could help me with. We could work together. Okay. Even the functions of the rooms. I mean importantly the you know the the equipment storage room like were you keeping your your turnout gear like why do you need a room why we can't just you know it's that kind of stuff that people don't understand that

it's it's a requirement well why is it requirement because this stuff is offging all day long when we come back but they don't that's what people need to understand I don't think people get that you know yeah okay so we're going to have the articles we're gonna talk about how we got to the site selection. We'll have some tax impact. We'll have the program. And this is for the 28th. Yes. And then Okay. And and it's going to feed into the presentation at town meeting. Yeah.

Um last time I had 10 minutes. I do think in the um BLF meeting we we after town special town meeting we discussed and everybody at the table from all the boards convinced the town moderator we might need more time for such a big investment and he said he would do that

he did but I he was also saying you know people only going to listen for so long I maximum 15 because I don't want to listen to a presentation more than 15 minutes so it it's going to be the art of taking this which I will probably have bigger for the forum and then cull it down to and that we can be observing in the forum what people are asking what seemed to be clear what seemed to resonate that they wanted to hear and make sure that gets in those kinds of things so how do we so that's all well and good but you're assuming that we have a big crowd you know so I'm an optimist

normally okay so we put our sign up at oh you done with the presentation stuff because I want to talk about How do we how do we do this outreach, right? Yeah.

So, we have the emails that we've collected that so Rajan can send out something. We can do social media. We have the sign at the fire station that you know how do we do we send something to the home association, homeowner association at Boxboro Meadows and at Enclave and and have them ask them to send it out so that you know we've got to reach more people. Um, I don't know about other developments and you know whether or not they have like homeowners associations or whatever, but um, you know, I do know that we, you know, people here might know somebody at Reed Farm that you could send it to them and they could send it out. We we've got to try to reach more people to say this is happening

on both both forums and come and listen because we need you to come to town meeting and be educated, you know. So we could do flyers like the library, other places, acting coffee, the transfer station. Transfer station. [laughter] It's a good place. It is a good place. Don't forget Applewood Village when you talk about developments. That's what I'm saying. So should we be doing there's 84 families there. Yeah. Right. Um yeah, I and they're they're not renters, they're owners. No, they're owners. And you know, I mean, renters vote and they should be included as well, but um it's the people who own these that that are going to have the direct tax renters will have a tax impact on their next absolutely

rent increase, but you know, so we should reach out to them. But any But I don't do we have contact information for all of these? I mean, like I know people at Applewood, so you know, we forward something to them, but We do we do have some contact information for the like the homeowner presidents and stuff like that. That would be great if we could do send the flyer out or an email out or something. I mean, I tried that with Enclave. I got no response when I sent it to the president the last time we went through this. So, it would be great if we could do that. Um, and then anything else anyone can think of, you know, any way we can think of getting the word out to people, we need to do that. if it's rather the PTF. Um, yeah, I put that on my list. Okay.

The AB school newsletters. AB school newsletters, right? Because this is all factual. It's it's not advocating one way or the other. What about like reverse 91? Is that We don't have reverse 911, do we? I thought it was being worked. It's we have What we're going to have though with this is there's going to be opt-in groups and it [clears throat] will be able to be done through opt-in groups. It can't be like it can't go out like an emergency would to in the house, but if people were to opt in once we get it, I'm anticipating within the next week to two weeks, this this our public campaign for that's going to go forward. So, it'll line up with um with before the town meeting, so we'll be able to get information to those who want it.

What about the uh the podcast system now that's on BXBTV? There's been several good Judy said that we can come anytime we want to do a podcast because maybe Mary could do a presentation for the camera. And it could be a podcast as well as when she's going to do it live in the room. You wanted to do it twice or do it in the room and be recorded. It's up to Mary. I'm just throwing it out there. But it' be like a commercial. Yeah, we did. I mean, we did that. I think if we're going to record things for like YouTube, they have to be shorter than the full present. Do we know like how how how many hits we got from the last time? That's something we need. Yeah, we should look at that like to make sure that

on the TV uh website it shows how many people have viewed each podcast. So, can I just not Can I just go back to the chief um when you say it's not So, are we going to have like a reverse 911 system and then

do you remember what it was called before? Cuz I opted into that before now it's going to be the Motorola Rave system. So before we were sharing with um Littleton Light, we were given access code red. We were given access to them and then something happened and we couldn't I wasn't here for it but we couldn't access it. So last year through discussions and with the opera money um Mike moved forward with a contract to enter into our own system through Motorola so that we weren't relying on an outside agency to try to get our messages out for us. So we do have one now. It's just it's um it's taken quite a bit to get it set up. Okay. But it's going to be two different It's going to be a reverse 911 for emergencies.

Yes. And then there's an optin that you're saying we could use, but we're not going to have that up and running in time, right? Yes, we will. You'll have it running in time where we have But we have to be a lot of It depends on how fast people sign up. It's our system. Yeah. April every Well, that would be for town meeting, but that wouldn't be for the forums. January 28th. So, it's not going to be available. So, to remind people about town meeting, that's going to be great in March. Hopefully, if you put it on the postcard forums, it will be for the form. It'll be too tight to to have critical mass signed up. Right. Okay.

Right. I you know I think just we have to do the best we could do. You know this is my this is literally my 22year problem volunteering in this community. I know how to get people to read the emails. Read the piece of paper that goes home in the backpack. Pick up the flyer. They just don't do it. And I understand people are crazy busy. And like I literally I clean out my email over the holidays because I had 10,000 personal emails, but if I stay on top of it, it's 200 a day.

It's it's ridiculous. Not to mention work and building comm. I mean, and it's not just this community. You know, all the communities are struggle with this. We can only do our best. Okay. And we give such good presentations. I mean, why doesn't everyone want to come? I mean, I would get coffee and donuts if people were like, [laughter] "But will refreshments help?" I'm happy to do that. Yeah. Emmy awardwinning. Okay. All right. Um Okay. And then So, and then we're going to do Do we have a date for the pre-Town meeting? We do. You just mentioned it for the

meeting. Shoot. I have it. Do you have it? February 23rd and for that there will be a one page in the in the warrant that gets mailed out um given the details on that but we should push through all these other mechanisms as well as as a matter of fact while we're pushing this push that one push both at the same time and the Boxboro news of course um I think would help us with all of that. Yep. Okay.

All right. Um, any other thoughts on public outreach? Okay, then we'll move to the minutes from December 11th. Any comments? I found a couple of small things. Okay. Um, on the first page, the big paragraph that says Chair Brolan. Yeah. The fourth line from the bottom says, "And to determine, vote whether to make them public."

Yes. And to determine, just take out vote whether to make them public. I noticed that too. Yeah. And then uh on the next page, yeah, the big paragraph, the second row down, that should be massive with two s's. And then it says a 5,000A reimburseable allowance. A $5,000. Yeah. Take out the a reimburseable allowance. Okay. And then the second paragraph from the bottom, there's nothing wrong, but I think everywhere else we've used a person's name. Your name, Kate. Davies, so on. Steve Kirby. Now all of a sudden, we just call the person the town planner instead of saying that it's Alec or is it Ian?

It was Alec. I I think we should put his name there. So somebody referring to this in the future. Yeah, I think we probably I probably said the town planner and so the notetaker didn't know, but it's Alec Wade W. W. And then um the top of the next page, the first paragraph, the third line down says during construction phase, they complete performance testing. Well, who's they? Uh in the who is it? I think it's context because we're in the previous sentence we're talking be a consultant. The idea is to reduce potential for

any who engineering it'll be an engineer. It'll be a mechanical engineer electrical engineer pl maybe there's nothing wrong but somebody looking at that's going to say well whose report should we look for? It's a broad statement. It's the third party commissioner. Yeah that's okay that's fine. during the construction phase. I mean, commissioning agent is which which page are you on? Uh the top of page three. Page three, the third line down. So, we could say instead of the the commissioning agent completes, that's fine. Performance testing blah blah blah. Yeah. And then um two more paragraphs down. The third line says prepare construction drawings.

Again, I was taking notes. Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead. Um the paragraph that starts with the committee reviewed. Yep. The third line down says prepare construction drawings reququalify contractors. I think that's should be prequalified because we haven't qualified them yet. So why would we be re-qualifying them? And then the next line down is missing the word 'the'. It says general bid for new firehouse. Obviously that should be for the new firehouse. Yep. Alan started this with I have a couple. I have to tell you that I just [laughter] finished a book that needed there's a lot of green

at least 20 more A's and 10 more the in it and I'm like I want to like edit the book. I it Yeah. I don't know why people drop their A's and th's but okay. Maria in science when you write a report these kind of things are the difference between something working and not working or somebody hurting himself and not hurting themsel because you left the critical word out. Exactly. [snorts] Um, Maria doesn't I said Oh, I thought you said you had some. No, I said Allan started with I have a few changes. [laughter] Well, they don't seem important technically, but when you read this from the future, this is why we had to go through and do a zoning article because somebody skipped over that. Yes. No, I'm fine with it. It just makes me chuckle.

We value you. We know. We're not criticizing. [laughter] Yeah. Um, two more paragraphs down that says the purchase of property at X. Yep. Uh, the fourth line down, it says containing the approximately X acres. Oh, yeah. It's take out the that that just moves up. Containing approximately X acres. Yep. And then the very last thing on the very last page says that today is Thursday and it's actually Monday where it says the next fire station building committee meeting is Monday, January 5th. It's in the footnote, but it says Thursday. Yeah, it is. That was a mistake.

Yeah. Okay. Um Okay. Anyone else have any comments, edits? We left it for Alan [laughter] to take care of everything. Nobody needs to worry about it because Ellen picks them all up. [laughter] Can I have a motion to approve the December 11th meeting minutes as revised? So moved. So moved. Second. Okay. Allan moved. Maria seconded. Uh roll call vote. Larry. I. Allan. I. Pria. Sundum. I. Maria. Nan. I. Sarah. I. Mac. I.

And Brolan. I. Thank you. Um, so I am going to remind us we have a meeting this Thursday, January 8th here. Um, we have a meeting, our regular meeting is January 15th. Um, and our then our fourth meeting of the month is January 22nd. So, right now all of those are on the books. I will say I'm entertaining the idea of giving us the 15th or 22nd off if we need a break, especially because we have presentations on the 28th. Um, so

can we make that decision on the 15th on Thursday night because we have a BLF meeting scheduled that would need to be rescheduled if we could have it on the 15th. Yes. And we added that in case we needed it. Exactly. For Yeah. So we'll decide on Thursday. We have a one on the 15th, but yeah. Okay. Um, any other updates we want to share? No. Uh, any other public input? Um, so if you're in the room, come to the mic and if you're online, raise your hand. I'm going to recognize Becky in the room.

Yeah, Mary, I just You guys were talking about trying to get the word out. I just want you to know the um Yes campaign [clears throat] is going to send out a flyer prior to town meeting reminding people they should go to town meeting and vote yes and then show up at the ballot also. And we're also looking to any number of coffees like and wines or whatever just to get people comfortable with the idea and answer questions and whatever else. So, if anybody in TV land wants to host a coffee or wine, you can feel free to reach out to me. But we also So, we're also going to work it. I mean, I know you guys are working it, but we're working it to get a pet to vote. Yes. So, Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate that. Anyone online? There's no one on. There's just um Okay.

Yep. No, there's no hands up online is what I'm trying to say, but not saying it. That I would take a motion to adjurnn. So, moved. Second. Second. Okay. I heard Maria move and Pria second. Roll call vote. Larry I. Alan I. Pria Sundram I. Maria Neil and I. Sarah I. Mac I. And Brolan I. Thank you everybody. We're making progress. Thursday is going to be fun.