Department of Public Works Building Committee Sep 16, 2026

Okay. Uh, welcome to the the EPW building meeting. It's Wednesday, September 16th, uh, 10:00 a.m. We're in the first floor meeting room meeting in person, but we're also doing a hybrid meeting using the new device, the owl. So, if there's technical difficulties, do the best we can. Uh there's ex life and um pursuit of chapter 2 of the acts of 2035. This meeting will be conducted both in person and via remote means. Members of the public wish to access the meeting remotely do so via zoom or via telephone. So I going to ask if someone will do minutes someone thank you. Very nice. Um so uh before we approve um the minutes I'd just like to introduce our new member. We have a new resident member who's starting with us today. Uh CJ Joe Diamond and um you know maybe it's good if we just and we'll really challenge I'll do quick introductions around the table so he knows who we are. Um I'm Christine Ring um chair and president member >> Paul manager >> Angela staff support office finance >> David off resident member also Bob Eric special capital project coordinator and serving in the role as a house OPM at the time being for the project more words Can we do the online people too? >> And I I still only Oh, >> Jason Steels Public Works. >> Yeah. >> And we also have our designer here from Western Samson, JP Paris, if you want to say. >> Yep. Good morning, JP Paris. Uh, project architect and manager from Weston Samson. And Jen is on as well. >> Jen Katy, um, architect from Weston and Samson. Right. Hello. All right. So, we have some minutes from August 12th and they uh were in the packet. Um is there a motion to approve the minutes? >> So moved. >> Second. >> Yeah. Any comments, edits, additions that anyone have to the minutes? I don't see any hands. So, um, uh, with, uh, I, uh, do we approve the minutes? I >> I >> Yeah, >> good. They're all good. All right. Banana. Great. Approved. Okay. So, we're moving to agenda item number three, which is discussion, review of the work status, and scheduled by Wesley Samson. Um, and there's two tasks that we'll be uh doing under that. Bob, do you or JP who's who wants to take over? >> I'll start briefly and then turn it over Samson if you'd like. So, as all the, uh, committee members, uh, other than our new committee members. So, I don't know if you forwarded a copy of the memo I sent out about a week ago, but if you were, great. Thank you. Um Gilford and I have been meeting with Western Samson on a weekly basis over the last month plus since this um meeting last uh Western Sam has accomplished a lot and what I did was I provided copies of some of the work product to date along with the me memorandum. Um, I did want to note that as I did in the in the memo, there are already we're going into this project recognizing that some decisions need to be made in order to meet the budget that we have available to us. Um, so some decisions regarding scaling this project back have already been made. um particularly in terms of what divisions of the DPW may not be located within a new building and that would be not free and grounds not wastewater not street lights and traffic signals and not solid waste. So at least the concept that we're working on right now would be to have everybody other than those divisions within DPW located at this facility. Uh but again as a necessity we are going into this thing with a fixed budget and we expect to have to make decisions along the way to meet that budget. So with that >> case what are those board divisions again? >> Uh freezing grounds wastewater street lights and traffic signals and solid waste. they are included in the staff matrix but then when the staff needs are projected and not included within the staff need projection within the zone. So the ones that are being included are administration, management, highway, water and vehicle maintenance. >> Not water. >> Well, yeah, water would be I think water >> water is okay. >> Okay, you're right. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> It just seems there now's rejected. So, no unification, just keeping it the same. >> So, I think with that, um, if Westmin would like to get into a little bit more detail, I I did share with them the memo that I sent out to the committee. So, they've seen that, but if you want to expand upon that, JP to kind of talk through the process that you've gone through today. you know, we are looking to one present what's been done and then get input on what's been done in order to try to keep moving in a straight direction on this project. Um, so if there is input on what's been done today, today is really the time to try to get it out on the table. >> Sure, sounds good. Um, yeah, there's a whole list of items. Um namely uh uh first of all we've been able to take the the survey drawings or the the GIS drawings that you have provided uh Bob and overlaid them with um both wetlands and other um related items uh setbacks etc and other constraints on both sites. uh that I think was shared and then there was a new version that was shared uh this morning uh with some additional information in there. Uh we've also completed uh so sorry that included uh doing wetlands delineation on both sites. So we've we've gi GPS located all those wetlands. Uh and then in addition um we've completed uh test bits and borings geotech borings on both sites. Um we have some very preliminary data but not much yet. Uh that's sort of being still studied and laboratory tested. Um I think they saw you know a little bit higher uh uh water table on the existing DPW site probably not too surprising. um and more sandy grally soils on the Ruxton site also not terribly surprising but again we don't have a lot of detail yet sort of waiting for that analysis uh to happen which is part of this process uh in addition um we had our envir environmental group out there uh taking some samples again we don't have any results yet but they take air quality samples as they're digging and looking at the borings as expected Ed, there were some, we'll call them hits basically, uh, on the existing DPW site, um, levels that are borderline reportable, uh, uh, contamination, most likely, uh, petroleum as far as I understand. Not enough to say whether what that means yet. Uh, again, further analysis going to require that. Um, it certainly indicates that we're going to have to have a management plan for any excavated soils on that site, which means we want to avoid exporting any soils off that site if we can probably during construction. Um, so that's more more detail to come on all of those items. Um, Jen, what else am I missing? We also had our um industrial engineers go out to the site and meet with the maintenance um the maintenance team and and the mechanics. They um took inventory of existing spaces um and all of the existing equipment and they are in the um process that was on the end of last week. So, they're in the process of um sort of going through and and processing all of that information and we'll have um recommendations and and reports forthcoming. >> Great. Um, and I guess I I mean I guess the biggest uh information at this point is particularly on the existing DPW site if you've seen the um those sort of survey drawings we've provided uh you know the wetlands that is partially on the property to the north of the of the existing DPW site um does impact act that existing site in a sense in the way that whatever work we're going to do on the north side of the site is going to trigger uh a notice of intent and working with the conservation commission. A lot of that land >> the updated drawings have not been shared with this group yet. >> Okay. There's not >> if you want to talk to those that might be a good thing. >> I >> Oh, sorry, Jen. I don't know if we're able to share share screens, but I actually have that updated one open and we can >> sure >> share it. >> That's possible. Yeah, it's it's it's basically just taking into account a small um perennial uh what's the term? >> It's a small stream that runs from that uh wetlands back down to the river. um it kind of just extends the the setback line all the way to the back of the site essentially. So it's not a much bigger impact, but it just extends what we are finding as an impact. So again, uh we actually have a call into the conservation commission to kind of preliminarily discuss with them, you know, what this might mean. Again, a large portion of that area is already disturbed and is already impervious, either paved or gravel or or tight tight partially paved. Um, so that has that could allow us some leeway. Um, it's something we're going to have to explore in more depth with the conservation commission um to see what they think they might allow us to do. Uh basically, you know, there's already a structure there that that uh the water garage is already well within the setback line. Um so it's going to depend on their their their look at it. Yeah, go ahead. >> I can't see the labels on this figure. Could you just elaborate on what those three sets of lines mean? >> Yes. If you can zoom in a little bit, Jen, get my glasses on. >> Yeah. So, the 50-foot setback is basically a no build zone. Uh, and you're not supposed to disturb at all. As you can see, it's already developed and disturbed land past that point. Um, there's some partially paved and and gravel areas, as well as the that that uh rectangular box that crosses that 50ft line is the is the water department uh garage that's sitting there. Um and then the 100 the 75 uh foot I guess is a no build zone. So the 50 foot is a no disturb I think is the term. So >> no work. Yes. 50 foot is no work. >> Yeah. And then the 100 foot basically anything beyond within that 100 foot is within the jurisdiction of the conservation commission. So any disturbance, any proposed work will have to go in front of them. And clearly no matter what we do, we're going to be across that line for sure. So we know they're going to be involved. we we want to have preliminary discussions with them before we even get very far to kind of understand what their take is going to be on this. Similar with the other site um there is an existing uh >> Hey Pete, while you're on this site, can you talk about natural heritage um before we jump to the other site? >> Oh, sure. Yeah, Jen, if you want to zoom out again. So that orange hatch that you see surrounding the site is what's called natural heritage uh uh boundary which means indicates that there's an endangered or classified uh species. Um and typically it's not known what it is until you actually request a survey. Um but in older uh maps that line actually crossed right across the DPW land. It's been updated to acknowledge that that whole area is developed and there's no there's no species living on that. It's only really up against the river. Uh it does go back along the the you can see the north side there. It it jumps back along the property line essentially. I think it's a fairly wooded un undeveloped area back there. So the assumption is I mean it I expect it's a turtle or or a similar species. Uh it's probably indicated. basically. >> Again, while we're on this figure, could you point out where the soil samples were found at the uh elevated air quality measurements? >> Uh yes, Jen, I don't know if you have access to those real quick. The boring locations. I do have >> We have We have on this map the >> Oh, there they are. >> TP the TP locations are the test pit and then B1 and B2 are the borings. I don't know specifically which ones were flagged. However, it's probably the ones at the rear of the site is my guess, but I I don't think I know which exactly which ones. >> The only one that was clear was the one at the front by the parking lot in the front. >> Okay, that makes sense. Yeah. Okay. >> So, what did you say? >> The only one that was clean was the one in the front by the parking lot. >> Okay. >> Okay. Yeah. Yeah. >> And there haven't been any borings near the existing uh fueling station. There wasn't Oh, there was. >> Yeah, there was one there. >> Okay. >> It's the one right behind the building, I think, Jen. Yeah, that one. Yeah. >> Right. >> It's dry. >> No, it's actually It's wetter, but it actually smells better. Well, it does degrade. It does. >> It does. Yeah, and I think they encountered some undocumented fill which would indicate, you know, not great for foundations. But again, without without the actual data and analysis, I don't want to say I don't want to say too much yet until we get that back from our G team. Um but similar on the other site if you could go to Pulpit Hill um there's an existing uh I guess it was a wash out pond or something uh for the concrete plant that man-made or not it becomes a wetland eventually um and therefore there are also setbacks from there but similarly it's it's fairly disturbed around it um although now pretty overgrown from what I understand. Um, in any case, similarly, we want to have a conversation with conservation to understand, you know, what their take is on this pond. Um, and and sort of how how we might address it. This does have more space. >> The boring on the map, too. >> Yeah. She highlight them as she did the other one. That was very helpful. >> They actually moved some of these. So, some of the locations she has on the map are not right. like the one she just the one boring the threes on top of a big pile of jelly. >> So they moved out. >> These may not have been updated. Yeah. >> And then there's the two they did on >> two they did which was actually on the underground power line. >> They moved those. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Oh, sorry. Go ahead. Well, I was just going to say different when we went out there, there were piles of debris from various construction projects that are is is the um the high level is that the high spots to the west of the existing building is that naturally formed or is that uh some of your debris piles? >> Uh unless there are debris piles to Okay. And this base mapping originates back to 2020. Um, so it's what we have available to the this we basically haven't came into the GIS system right now. We haven't done any detailed on-site property survey as of yet. Okay. >> So things on this side in particular may have shifted a bit. >> Yeah. Um, what you see today? >> Right. >> Question on the natural heritage area. Was that uh established? When was that established? recently wind the last natural heritage ground they updated and moved it farther in. It used to be on stage space safe stream >> and this is completely disturbed site. >> Yes. And we actually went back to them and talked to them about and they said suck it up. >> We don't establish the line. Yeah. >> Correct. Right. >> Yeah. And it's only one there's only one animal in this. Is that a turtle? >> Uh they they don't tell us like it's it's actually held in secret. In fact, >> well when we applied for it, we know it's a hurdle. >> Oh, okay. Got it. >> The DPW site, the current site is in the dwarf wedge muscle, which is actually I think Okay. Um, I am actually just getting a little bit of a quick update on the geotech. Just a kind of quick summary uh for the borings. And I can read this to you. It's just an email I just received. So, um, on the existing DPW site, there's about 4 to 16 feet of fill. Um and then uh that fill is not suitable for foundation. So it would either be be need to be removed or improved. Uh which would be a ground improvement system very likely. Uh and then the pulpit hill they found about 2 to 9 ft of fill. Um, also similarly not not particularly suitable for foundations. So would also likely need to either be replaced or ground improvements uh applied. Again, it's pretty preliminary. Um, but that that's a quick summary of of what they found and both sites. So >> um, it means some additional cost for either removal of of unsuitable soils. And when we say unsuitable, it means they can't take the load of a building basically without settling too much. >> And they take parking lots. >> Uh potentially potentially that depends. Yeah. Some >> and this once we select a site there'll be much more detailed geotechnical program conducted at this point. So this was a level geotechnical evaluation. >> Exactly. It's just to give us an idea of what's out there. Once we have a layout and we can actually go back to Geotech and say, "Okay, here this is where we're proposing a building. Let's do borings at each corner and one in the middle." And we'll really get a better understanding of exactly what the impact will be. Um, so yeah, I mean, you know, each of these sites are a bit more restricted than we anticipated. I think the Pulpit Hill Road, we knew about that pond for sure. Um the little wetland on the existing DPW site doesn't really show up on GIS particularly, so it wasn't clear that that was there. And that does have an impact on how we can use that site. But again, until we talk to conservation and get a better understanding of of their take on that, um I don't want to eliminate any pro possibilities there yet. >> Do we have that meeting scheduled? No, we have an informal call with them. >> We we can't schedule anything until we actually have a plan. >> Correct. >> But we will not be meeting conservation commission for quite some time. >> Yeah, I should I should clarify. I don't mean conservation commission that we called. We called the conservation agent >> which is the office that manages the commission. So yeah, it's them that they we would talk to and then eventually >> to the commission. Correct. and JB I sit on the other side of the cube from the agent so >> okay include me in the discussion that would be great >> great sure absolutely yep y >> I'll hear one the other >> okay might as well be involved in it >> yeah I I asked Jesse our our civil engineer just to try to give a call just quickly to see if they could get any preliminary stuff before this meeting but he wasn't able to get through to her yet >> thank you so I'm thinking Jake really you know a lot of the heavy work this month went into, you know, the the staff analysis and the space needs analysis. Can you step through that process and sort of explain where we think we are today? >> Absolutely. Yeah. Jen, you want to take that over? >> Yeah, we can do that. Um so we started the process by having interviews and and and determining um the needs of each department and each group. Um and from there we came up with um the program that was shared um based on a comment that we received back um saying is there a way to show what we currently have? we've added. So, what you're seeing here is a little bit different than what you what was provided last week in that we've added the existing square foot where it's known. If it's not if it's not there, then it's um either the space doesn't exist yet or or we just don't have that information. Um so, >> likewise, if you can send that along so I can get it out to the committee would be good. >> Absolutely. Yep. This uh this was um updated yesterday. So I will send that out um right after this meeting. So we have each um each division, the rooms, the um square footage, and the rough dimensions. Uh and it's an iterative process. So we've gone back and forth a couple of times to make sure that the sizes are correct, that the rooms are correct, and where can we um where can we make adjustments as needed. Um, so we've got the water, we've got fleet maintenance. Um, fleet maintenance will be updated based on our industrial engineers um, meetings last week. So I had a meeting with them yesterday. Um, and we started the process of refining this uh, program. Um, and then we've got our vehicle storage and our vehicle wash day. And then from there we have um room data sheets that get associated with those um each of those program elements um and the room data sheets look something like this. So this would be an example of in this case the public lobby and it may or may not look like this in the final um the final design but it gives an idea of what that space might look like. Um and we have a room data sheet in this um for almost every almost every room in the program has a room data sheet associated with it. Um, and I don't think that this has changed from the copy that the um, committee received last week. >> Are these room data sheets sort of standard that you use for all your projects? >> We we do have because we've done so many of these, we do have a number of layouts that we're able to start with. Um, but I wouldn't say that we have um one, you know, we don't have any one lobby for that we use for all of our projects. Um, but these >> we a week or so ago, we did actually two weeks ago starting step through each one of these sheets and tweaked them to fit what Gilbert and I thought matched the town's requirements. So, they sort of started with a standard and then the standard was adapted. >> Yes. the benefit >> which which were provided to us is is the is the tweaked version what was provided to us >> as I believe what Jennifer said what she has up in the screen is the same thing that Gilford Nar and then I forwarded to you >> is it opportunity to make comment about this >> absolutely >> um I appreciate the fact that it's it's um adjustable it one of the comments in looking at many of the office spaces is that it appears the spaces appear a bit larger than you know state employees, town employees, um professional staff, whatever might actually um need in terms of efficient office space. And I'm thinking, frankly, of my own careers with uh cubicles and and really good workstation furniture that um there is an office component that was included in here. It was like one of the mechanicals at about 144 square feet. So 12 by 12 office space. Excuse me. seems like a really viable um unit of measure. Uh a little bit larger if you're going to include a supervisory capacity. Um but it felt like in general there's a little bit of extra space. And what occurred to me is when I look at exactly this floor plan for instance, there is a window component that you already seem to have chosen that has a large and a small window um element and that that narrow window element is literally the extra square footage that seems a little unnecessary. So, I didn't know if your if your go-to floor plans, you know, essentially drive the square footage of the office because of your window components. That's really pushing it. But, um, that's what occurred to me when I saw these these diagrams. >> Um, the other >> just >> go ahead. Sorry. >> Just to quickly point out, I mean, this particular one is intended as a superintendent's office and so it does have that extra space. For example, small meeting table. Yep. I understand that. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> And there and there are lots of ways to accomplish that. >> Absolutely. >> The other the other component that struck me was your >> um circulation allowance and the the grossing factor. Uh looking back at your 2015 and 2018 numbers, uh the gross the circulation numbers were lower. You've got in many cases in the office space you've got up to 30% circulation that seems in a very efficient office space that seems pretty high especially with an additional 10% grossing factor. So, I wondered if you could look at that and and actually think through um my my guess is that you're you're bulking it up a little bit so that as we as we come to budget considerations, there's there's room to to bear off. I don't know. Um, I mean the 30%, if you can scroll back up on the program, Jen, the 30% is a fairly typical use uh or a number that we use for circulation and includes corridors, um, you know, other stuff that's not included as an actual space. That number hopefully would become more efficient as we actually design the building. And it it will likely become more efficient as we design the building. But until we design the building, yeah, we want to make sure that we're covering the whole building essentially. >> The previous iteration had 15% circulation. So I was surprised to see 30 in this in this round. >> Well, it depends. It it varies from section to section. >> I think we've simply updated our standards because that is that's kind of what we use typically for all projects right now is that 30%. Particularly for office space, you can see that it does reduce in in other types of spaces where we know there's very little circulation. >> Yep. So in the in the in the shops areas, in the maintenance areas, it's 10%. >> So it's strictly in the spaces where we have offices that we see the higher circulation. >> Yeah. >> Um >> anyway, a number to look at. >> Absolutely. Um, another question that I had was, uh, under staff support, uh, if I count up the staff, it's, you know, maybe maybe 15, um, 10 to 15 highway operators using a break room. Um, how did you all size that muster/break room? We've got full staff of about 68 people, but on-site folks given that the admin engineering have their own break room um mechanics have their own break room. What drove this size? >> Uh I think Jen, I don't know if you can get to that the spacing sheet for that. >> I'm looking for the matrix. I'll pull that up right now. >> Okay. Um I mean it's intended to be >> 30 or about 39 chairs, 39 spaces. >> What's what's the basis of that? Yeah, I mean the basis is is to be able to have an entire staff uh either meeting or training sessions uh in that room as well as uh you know being used for uh storm event uh uh uses as well whether it's a break room actually for storm event people uh plowing or um you know almost like a an emergency center as well. So, uh, that specific number, uh, I would rely on you, Jen, and and what the discussions were on how that what that actual number is, but yeah, thanks. That that helpful. on the screen. What I just pulled up is our is our staffing matrix and it has all of the employees and then all of the columns in the spreadsheet um is whether or not it's a future seasonal or a full-time staff, whether they need an office or a workstation and whether they should be included in the locker count, the parking count or included in the um included in the uh DBW program. So these are the numbers that oh well we don't have that column but this is the number that we used to determine um how many people might be present to use that room for for uh training purposes or for storm events. Um it's truly intended to be a multi-function space rather than have a space for training and a space for break and a space space for a storm event. It's intended to be a flexible space. >> Yep. I I understand that. I was just trying to figure out what your basis for the capacity of that room is. If we have 60ish um employees, you've got 9 to 15 people maybe using it on a daily basis as a break room. Um >> actually I think the water water division and highway division were both using that as that primary break room sets 30. >> Okay, good. >> Yeah. >> While we're on that one, the storm event uh use um does that include sleeping? Is that what the CSS are for? >> We're showing a a kind of a a cot storage room. We don't show specifically a sleeping room. Uh there's a code difference. If we show an actual sleeping space, it would require a different fire rating and and an hour fire rating wall around it. We could do we could show an actual sleeping space. We've done that in some DPWs. Um many times we just designate some storage space so that in emergency if CS are needed, they can be pulled out and used. um sort of informally, let's say. >> Does that include storage for your tables and extra chairs? If they were to p if they were to put this room into like a training mode >> and had only chair seating, what's the capacity and do you need extra chair storage? >> Uh that's probably a good question. I mean, part of it depends on kind of how we choose that furniture. Um and you know how we choose carefully stackable and foldable tables and chairs. I think generally yeah the intent is the furniture in here is very flexible. It can be shifted around to be kind of cafeteria styles as shown here or individual desks or you know shared desks for training sessions. Um that's typically the intent. Yes. And we want to make sure that that storage is sized properly for that. just roll down to the third page of the space summary because we don't have that gray column right now. I just So the bottom total was 50. Oh, it's changed a little than what we have. Okay, so it's changed to slightly. >> Can you zoom in a little bit further? Basically, they get rid of the diagram on the right. >> 1835. All right. That just gives us a a number. Thank you. >> Mhm. And Jennifer that 18,000 square feet since that is that inclusive of inclusive of every space or is that just an attempt to match spaces? Is there space within the building that isn't accounted for in that 18,000? >> Um that we would want to verify. Um we had a and JP maybe you know the answer to this. We had um the existing square footage from a previous study we had done. So that's where we pulled that information from. >> Yeah, I pretty sure that is inclusive of every space within the existing building >> as comparison. >> So it is apple to apple pretty much >> correct. >> We'll do a double check before we send this out to make sure that that what is correct. Yeah. >> So the existing square the existing building is 18,000 square feet. I think it's a little bigger because I I look back to the old study too. I want to say it was in the 20s. Um, but that might include other building buildings on the site. >> 18 seems a little low. >> They actually they actually measured it. So >> yeah. No, I just wonder if it doesn't include >> should be on the property. >> You get multiple levels as well when you're >> We'll go back and recheck these and make sure before we send this out officially, >> right? >> But it's certainly in that range. >> Question. Um, I really appreciate the the review of the vehicles and the um the equipment storage and so forth. Um, can somebody explain if we have um in terms of fleet management? I wondered if we have I think three employees in that branch and there are five in five um maintenance bays plus an inspection bay and I just wonder if someone could explain to me the need for five bays with only three employees. I know it saves time to keep something up on a lift rather than moving it around, but do we actually need um five >> right >> maintenance phase? Yeah, as exactly as you say, the the there's an industry where there's a complex uh uh calculation in the vehicle maintenance industry that basically comes down to the standard is typically around 1.5 bays per mechanic. So that ends up being five bays for three mechanics. And the reason is yes, very typically they're working on two uh more than one vehicle at a time and typically one vehicle is a long-term project whether it's waiting for a particular part or you know some large complex assembly and therefore they can still work on other vehicles on short-term uh by having open bays. And from what we understand as far as the state inspection go, they inspect all the town vehicles for state inspections and therefore that gets a lot of use and really needs that full uh independent bay for that and so it's not ever taken up by a vehicle under maintenance. >> Thank you. >> Bay just for inspections. We kind of collection when you go to when you go to Jiffy Lube there's only an inspection day. They don't pay or change his sight. Right. >> Right. >> So, is that maintenance uh structure intended for all town vehicles or just the inspection for all town vehicles? Is that what I'm understanding? We do all except the school buses. So, police cars, police, fire, um the LSSC vehicles, the library vehicle, the rest vehicles, those all come to us. The only ones we don't do are school buses right now. We used to do the school buses. We'll probably start doing it again sometime, but not not right now. >> And does this facility have capacity for school bus? >> One. >> Yeah. >> Yes. It does. It actually has capacity for the fire trucks. We're supposed to in school back there, we're supposed to have inside, but we don't. >> Okay. >> They stick out. >> I'm imagining I'm just trying to imagine it's big enough to drive a school bus in and have it lifted up. >> For vehicle inspections, you don't lift. >> I was thinking of the maintenance part. >> The maintenance part is JP talk more about that. >> They don't work on Do they work on buses and fire trucks with depending what it is? We're not we're not certified to do a lot of work on the fire trucks, only little stuff. Yeah. >> Um and we haven't done anything almost as far as maintenance goes, except whenever they come in for an inspection, used to change a light bulb. >> And again, we we have two trucks that are as big as the school bus. Well, I'm I'm I'm thinking of just, you know, building for decades ahead and it may be efficient for the town to do all its maintenance at one facility at some point in the future. And is this being built big enough to do that is my question. Should it be built big enough? I guess it's another that would be a decision to make. Yeah. JP, can I ask um the square footage, the 53,000, is that something that's potentially achievable with our budget or is there more work to do? >> I would hazard to guess that there's more work to do. Yes, very likely. >> I wouldn't expect that number increases, >> right? Do we >> I think you've said this in the past, J. Is there a rough ballpark co uh construction cost per square foot out there right now or will we anticipate when construction might happen? Um yes there are yes there is um I mean you know at 53,000 uh it can vary but we're talking probably between $6 and $800 a square foot in some >> we're in the right order. >> JP just a question about the vehicle and equipment storage garage. Is that heated and or is that space unheated? >> It's what we call partially heated. So, it's half that. It's it's basically heated to say 50° to stop it from freezing. And that's that's the key for all those trucks that are going to be kept in there between the diesel and the hydraulics. Uh it's really important to keep those above freezing, but it does not need to be heated to 68 degrees. It's not a workspace um or, you know, simply for storage. But from a construction costs perspective, it needs to be insulated to code and things like that. >> Absolutely. Yes, it does. Yes. And the other I mean the the other big factor for that and the maintenance bay is the ventilation requirements because we're bringing in uh diesel and gas vehicles. Uh there's pretty very heavy uh ventilation requirements for fresh air for both of those spaces in in different they're treated in different ways. But >> JP, one other question. Um I assume it's too early for this to reflect whether there's additional mechanicals from solar or any net zero components. Um does that typically add square footage or does it depend on what we choose? Uh I shouldn't really add square footage per se as far as like if geothermal for example is an option to the site or um you know all object >> uh no it shouldn't really add space. Uh there are certain strategies that um will help with those systems as far as actually designing the spaces, but I don't anticipate the building getting larger for any reason because of that if that's what you're asking. >> Thank you. >> Um I was going to build on exactly that. So in the in the admin area I think there were there are mechanics mechanical room >> and my question is is that sufficient in size for for all the geothermal pumps and piping because that is that's pretty significant um and all the air heat exchange um equipment >> right about 192 192 square feet >> I And that's honestly to be determined to some extent. Uh, a lot of that actually ends up outside as well. I think it's a pretty generous mechanical room. It is an estimate at this point and until we start actually designing it, it could get bigger, but it's a pretty small percentage of the whole building. So, I'm not concerned that it's going to affect the overall square footage all that much. And we have other, you know, there there are other sort of uh strategic ways of using space. for instance, locating some equipment up on a mezzanine which won't increase the footprint of the building, for example. >> Yeah, I was just worried that it was not large enough. >> Mhm. >> Um we go back to the vehicle and and storage garage. Um sort of in a similar vein, that seems to me that it could be a separate building. it wouldn't necessarily have to be um attached to the main office and workspaces. Is that um is that true? Does that give you any flexibility in terms of citing that kind of a facility? Uh it definitely gives flexibility as far as sighting and in fact um you know one of the one of the ways we proposed to phase the project was to build a separate garage if we were using the existing site. The downside of that is probably more expensive because we're um you know we're not able to uh double up on foundations and exterior walls and so on. So it does end up being slightly more expensive. But yes, if necessary for a flexible site, then that's what we that's what we typically would do. >> Any other questions? I'd like to go back to the uh staff matrix and I I'm not sure where you are in the process here but um my understanding is we're we're trying to estimate uh staff needs over decades which of course is very difficult to do but you folks have the experience to know what trends in in needs of DPWs are and so on. Uh so do these numbers reflect your judgment as to what we what Amoris will need in terms of DPW staffing 10 years, 20 years, 30 years from now or you're still doing that analysis. I'm not sure where you are. Yeah, I mean as to be honest I mean many uh each DPW municipality is quite different as far as their future needs because it depends a lot on the population growth. Uh if there's a lot of undeveloped land and no knowledge that those are going to get developed into more housing for example bringing in more population it's more likely the DPW will have greater needs and a greater uh need to grow. So it really is quite dependent. Um so we're sort of relying more on the municipality and the DPW folks to tell us what they think the the growth is going to be. We don't typically do an in-depth analysis of again population or density growth for each town. We have done some of that work on some bigger cities. For example, we have a project in Cape Coral, New uh Florida that is growing exponentially. And so their future growth, obviously not a completely different scale, but their future growth is is just off the charts. So um but I you know I think this reflects a fairly typical growth pattern in my from what we've seen >> with our budget limitations. We don't have a lot of capacity to build something in anticipation of a future need that we don't need. That's always the balance, right? >> Yeah. >> Whereas state coral, yeah, they know they're going to grow, so they have the tax college. >> Yeah. >> Right. >> I guess the same same sort of question would apply to the vehicle uh inventory. Um can we assume or shouldn't we assume that the number of vehicles we have and the types of vehicles we have is the right mix and it will continue to be that same mix going you know decades ahead >> it will all change every year >> it'll all be done by AI right >> no >> and every every director will bring a different you know different approach to managing the department then time will change things as else. >> We're trying to build a facility today that we can within our available budget that is as adaptable as we can that gets as much done as we can. >> We don't know. We've learned a new term. Our new term is work to the budget, not work to the program. So that's our new TPW motto. Work to the budget. Got it. Okay. The biggest vehicle change we might see in the future is going to electric, but that doesn't seem to be happening all that fast for those big vehicles. So >> JP, does the garage house or maybe for Guilford, does the garage house all the vehicles that would normally be at the DPW site or will there still be some that have to go outside? Yeah, I know some will be housed at that nice water or train grounds, but >> Jake, you can ask about >> sure. I mean, typically what we try to do is size the garage for >> the total number of large uh diesel vehicles. Um >> in addition, you know, any vehicles that really need to be indoors for emergency purposes, then we typically try to provide a coverage out an outdoor coverage storage for other vehicles and or equipment that just need to be kept out of the weather. And then yes, there's there we typically will identify in order to keep the scale down, identify a number of vehicles that are going to be kept outside. Some of those are vehicles that that staff bring home, for example. But typically, you know, they're sort of smaller pickup trucks, etc., gas powered vehicles that are fine to stay outside, just inconvenient. >> And I believe the plan right now shows about half of the current DPW vehicles being located inside. If I recall, correct? >> Um, Jen, I don't know. Can you answer that? I'm not quite. We have >> um current layout shows the um three large vehicles, 19 medium vehicles and six small vehicles and a number of plows and trailers. And then we also have the paint truck inside um in inside the paint bay. And then the water truck um is also in a separate bay um we're calling it the emergency uh emergency response >> right >> bay. um so that it's easily accessible if there's a middle of the night water main break. These are all the items um on the last page of the fleet storage. Um all the items that are not >> currently in the um in the in the uh storage garage. So these would be out under a covered canopy or or out in in a parking area. Um and to JP's point, a number of them are smaller pickup trucks or or trailers. And this is preliminary. Um if there's discussion that says this really needs to go inside, this can stay outside, then these can these can shift. But what we're showing is a um is a conceptual layout of what could fit in this garage. Um and making sure that the bays are sized appropriately for the vehicles that'll be using it. >> Guilford, did they run all those vehicles by you? like these are the ones that really ought to be covered. >> We talked there's really six six vehicles we talk about being inside all the time. >> We talk and then we talk about what we So there's like these are the six you can't send outside. These are the preferred ones. These are the ones that can go out. >> Yes. >> Yes. we talked about. >> And Jennifer, the the deficiencies list that you have you showed a moment ago, does that include vehicles that are assigned to say wastewater treatment? >> No. No. >> All the wastewater treatment vehicles are wastewater and they're not on this list. And they're not >> they should not be on this list. We'll make sure. We'll confirm that. >> Okay. The list the list is each vehicle list has each assigned to some take the tree grounds and electric and waste stage. Okay. I wanted to make a comment about um you know we're talking about this facility but if it's clear that we have deficiencies in our other departments um I would like to not at least lose the idea of addressing some of those deficiencies as part of this project just because it's not specific to the new facility that's being designed. here. And I don't know what that means yet. Um, but if I think of tree and ground, if I look across the field, um, you know, see where they've parked all their vehicles and their equipment, they probably could stand some additional cover storage, that kind of thing. >> I don't want to forget the other divisions. >> Yeah, it's just on the money. Anything else? Okay, we're this is we're going to be hardressed to fun this and then expand the scope and we're just going into it knowing this is not going to do everything. >> It's going to do what we can afford. >> Yeah. >> But try and maximize >> any questions. A question for Jennifer and JP. What type of direction would you like from this group today going forward? Um because we have a schedule that we want to maintain. Um, is there >> Well, I >> I think you know our our first steps or I should say our next steps are going to be compiling all this site information we've gotten and and then taking this program and determining a minimum footprint for the building. So I guess I guess at least for the moment for you know conceptual design purposes is the committee in agreement that at least the current program we're showing which is like 53,000 square ft is a starting point that that's okay to use as a footprint essentially to start looking at the sites. It's not a final design. It's not a final program but it is a a placeholder for the moment for us to pursue looking at the other sites. I guess that's maybe a question that could be answered. Or or do they want us to, you know, hone that down before we start looking at a at a footprint, I guess, is the question. >> When you say footprint, you don't mean like the actual footprint. You're saying this is how much has to be contained within a building, right? >> Yeah. basically so that we can and I don't I don't mean to belittle our design process but you know we have a chunk of building that we need to fit on a site and and we need to know how big that building is and it's not necessarily a single building as pointed out earlier that may be constraints where we actually have two separate buildings for example but these space needs sheets in this program defines a footprint eventually um and >> 50 53,000 ft could be uh a 40,000 foot footprint but because it could be under multiple stories. >> Yes, >> that is true. >> The total total area of the building it all one floor it would be 53 but we do have mezzanine. There's opportunities for second floors. Yes. >> Right. >> Can you potentially go three stories in that zoning area or is it two? >> It's a function issue. It's the way the building. >> They looked at that 12 years ago. I mean JP you could answer more. This will make so many things you could ever move and then code gets triggered like the bathroom. >> Could we build three floors? >> We could go three floors. It's difficult at a certain point because uh >> it's a small >> the you know the big spaces like the shop spaces or such they have to be on the ground floor. The maintenance needs to be on the ground floor. There's only there's a limited number of there's a limited amount of square feet that we can put on a second or third floor. Um, so there's only so much space we can save. You know, administration could go on a second floor. The staff support could go on a second floor, but there's only so much footprint that we can do that with. >> If they look at 2016 or they did it, it's flow that makes see what happens. the uh the square footage of per per your calculation, the square footage of most of the office spaces is roughly I'm I'm tallying up in my head 16,000 square ft. So your footprint would be 10 and six or something like that. I mean a 10,000 square foot building is not huge just in terms of scale. >> Correct. Right. Right. JP, how do you feel? So, if we look at 53 or 55,000 square feet, how confident do you feel that you could get all that on the existing site and still have the mobility and outside working spaces that would be required? >> Um, that's obviously an open question at the moment, uh, particularly given the possible conservation constraints on that site. But I we we're going to pursue as much as we can and see, you know, what conservation will allow us to do. Um what we can do within the guidelines within the bylaws for that as well. >> So you're still grinding that out and trying to, you know, get some ideas going. I think the committee would need more of that before any kind of final decision would be made. >> Absolutely. Okay. Yeah, understood. Yeah, for sure. I think to JP's point that 53,000 square ft isn't locked into a site. It isn't locked into your specific footprint. It isn't locked into mezzanine second floor. Just is that the right number from a functional standpoint for this community to be able to get behind that then allows them to start trying to answer some of those other questions. >> Right. So, I look at the experts. They're talking with people that know what we're dealing with this town and what we're using with what trying to pro, you know, prophesize into the future. Um, we look at it if this has been a long long look at and we had 80,000 then we had 72,000. Now we've removed chunks of the DPW out of this building and we're at 53. I mean, if we like grind out some hallways or something, I mean, maybe we can get it down a few thousand. But I think in general, what we're looking at is what we're we're looking at is something that was really well thought of. >> And it's not going to get bigger, right? For I assume it's easier to shrink than it is to get bigger, right? >> If only if we reunite more of the BPW, that's how it would get bigger. What we've cut out is tentacles of the deep government. >> And it's unlikely if that 53 goes to 52 or goes to 51 that it's going to affect any of the things that JP has to look at next. >> What's a million? >> But for scenario planning working with using the 53 that they've come to I think reasonable approach. >> Um and so that's what I think they should >> I would say. So by the way it would be good for the committee so we don't come back in several weeks and >> Yeah. And so, no, it's too big. It should be 45,000 square feet. You know, we would like to get that input now. >> Right. >> I just I think it's hard to say the range JP gave for square footage means the build. I assume that was just construction cost. JP the 600 800 all total project costs. >> Yeah. >> No, that's should be soft. >> Again, we we don't really know other than the $10 million range, right? So, things be tough to say. definitely 53 that there going to have to be some comparing back at some point. It's the evolution of a design. Do you, you know, continue to get closer and closer to the right. >> As a as a as a committee member, um I guess I could say that I'm comfortable with the components that were um identified. Uh you know, in thinking through buildings and processes and functions, it feels like, you know, most of the items have been checked off. the needs have been have been identified. I would request that there be a somewhat closer look at not to nickel and dime it but but just think of general overall office space. It's it um it feels a little luxurious. Um, and I think some of those square footages of offices and and also or shared workspaces, um, that should be actually, you know, pretty, um, pretty space effective. Um, might be an area to look at, but otherwise it feels like the components from my, you know, basic knowledge seem to be covered. Okay. >> So, have we done due diligence? Um, I I think the process sounds like it has been. We have experts who have done this many many times. So, they've had experience full time and look at um regarding office space. I know from someone who's worked in these areas, it's not a paperless office. Um, this is a type of work that looks at drawings and maps and there's a lot of we roll it out table. So when I see these little like examples of room, I know that there's probably going to be a standing table, work tables, and even if it goes to computers someday, it will be large light tables and large screens. So they are offices that I think in general sometimes need a little bit more space. They also tend to bring a couple boxes of equipment in. It's not your standard office with just people with a laptop. >> Yeah. And that's particularly true for the engineering department which we >> will look at that administrative part. >> Right. Correct. So I just want to say that but I mean does you know Pam and I are are saying some things here but does anyone else have any issues pros or cons or are they like okay this is where we're sitting right now 53 of course smaller is better for cost but we also don't want to short change function and and furnace and >> I'll just chime in here on the staffing and I appreciate JP's answer on this staffing level you know looking ahead decades Um and just my own take on it is uh number of road miles in the town is a pretty good surrogate for how big a DPD DPW needs to be >> because it dictates sewer, water, paving, you know, plowing, etc. >> Uh and are we going to increase road miles in this town over the next decades? Probably not a lot is my take, my observation. >> Maybe Hampshire, maybe Hampshire. >> Maybe Hampshire be nice. How many years? say 30 years just meanwhile think you're going to end up having to do some increases but you're not going to have new widening the same >> we're take over all the roads again >> they think you're going to find want to widen some roads 30 years so your lane miles will increase till we're going from a rural community to a more suburban community that expects I see >> complete streets bike lanes and sidewalks people asking for sidewalks >> that would have never been never anticipated on the country road was just certain farms >> right >> some bourbon eyes >> yeah sidewalks definitely increase more sidewalks >> please >> people on middle street and east tree east road east sidewalks they thought they moved to a nice place where you could walk on the side of the road >> cows >> they will look at the cows >> that doesn't sound like coral leveling >> then I think we can't anticipate really um you know what kind of technology will be available I joked about it but I machinery and so on may be sufficiently efficient. But I I'm happy with the staff is the bottom line with staff estimates. >> The only thing that could change would be the service delivery method, which would mean like suppose we get out of the business of highway maintenance, we contract with somebody. If we're out of that business, we're out of water maintenance, we contract with a different company. Whatever it is, everything can be contracted out. There's some towns in community in California, they have like two employees, everything is based on contracts. >> That's not our method. That's not our culture. I don't think that's where we're going. But that's that's the only thing. If you look to the future, that's it would shrink if anything >> that would take time. >> A lot of issues >> or regionalization, but most likely if there was regionalization, Ammerst would probably be the center of the region as opposed to >> probably would. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> So, I'm happy with that. Bottom line, I'm happy with >> I am too. and and and Pam's um careful assessment of the uh space programs you thought u I'm good with that too. >> So I would suggest to our designers to keep moving on these numbers. Of course we'll keep looking at them. We're not locking into something right now, but we're doing due diligence and we appreciate your expertise. >> Okay, that sounds good. >> Booking ahead Christine. >> Yeah. plan maybe another meeting a month from today. >> We have one scheduled for a month from now. Um >> yeah, I don't anticipate we'll be ready for anything in two weeks. So I think that would be the best time. >> That's October 18th or >> 21st October 21st. >> 21st and then it's the 18th of November. So we have two scheduled. We actually have three. Then we have December 16th. So, we do have three sniff out. And you guys have a lot of work to do. JP, >> we do >> and Jennifer. >> And Jennifer. Yes. I think I know JP Park. So, I'm defaulting. >> JP, do you think functionally after this next meeting? After that is probably when we start the schematic design phase and we actually start putting something on a piece of paper that would look like a building. >> Yes. That would be wouldn't be between now and a month from now. That would be the outcome moving forward. >> Correct. Yes, that's right. Yeah. >> Can I ask a schedule question? >> Yeah. >> Are we still JP? Are we still are we on track for possibly cost estimates in December still or do you think that's pushed back a little bit to where we are now? >> Um I'm I'm gonna actually say that I need to look at that which I haven't been able to recently. So >> yeah, just keep us posted on that. >> We can give an update on that. >> We might have actual contestants. >> Sure. >> And Jennifer, if that can be part of our next meeting a little bit schedule and how it's looking for the next steps. >> Absolutely. >> I don't know what to look at the screen. It's so weird. Or look at just look at the people. Look at the chair. >> Yeah. Yeah. Um, anything else to let us and also you bought us OPM is there anything else we should know or do for the next >> I think what we hope to get out of this meeting today and we accomplished so >> okay >> go for do do you and do the DPW employees all feel like they've had their voices heard by this process >> um mechanics 22 the mechanics have two or three days Um, I think they are probably the most impacted right now. >> Um, everybody else has one day. I came in for one day. Jason, have you heard anything? >> We can't hear you. >> Can't hear you, Jason. >> Hang on. Here we go. Sorry. Can you hear me now? >> Yes, we can. Um, yeah, I haven't really heard any pro or con for, you know, anybody, you know, complaining that they haven't been heard or that their space hasn't been looked at. I'm sure there there's probably a few outliers, but there always are. >> I think it actually said it on one of the sheets, someone wants a window. >> Ah, yes. >> We heard that only once. multiple times though, right? >> Yes. >> Hey, speak out, right? >> Yeah. >> Um, okay. So, thank you, Weston and Samson. And, um, thank you. Thank you. And we'll see you in a month. >> Sounds great. Thank you. >> Say if you want. >> Appreciate your time. Thank you. >> Um, I'm going to move to item four. This is a new one. It's a budget update and invoices that Sean had requested. I assume that's nothing but Okay. So, that will be a repeat on the >> left. No, we have not received any bills today. >> Okay. Good. No, that was sweet about that. Okay. Um and then we're going to move to five. Okay. So, it's public comment. We have one person here. >> Oh, did Hello. All so tall. I Anybody? >> We have two people in in the house. And do we have anyone on in the in space? >> So the people the particip if you dialed in on Zoom if you want to speak raise your hand. It is. >> Um >> yeah, at least five. >> Uh this is the public. This is the first time we've used this new tool, the owl. So bear with us here. Um we're trying to figure out how we can see if there's hands up. Uh if you want to figure that I could take the question in here. >> Yeah. Jason panelist seen. >> Oh, >> Jason is a panelist. >> Can you see hands? Jason still with us. Um, >> yeah. Looks like he's muted right now. Yeah, with carrot we don't have it. >> Christine, I am also online. Do you want me to raise my hand so you can see if it comes up? >> Okay, it's up. >> Ah, okay. So, >> right, Maria. All right, so we don't have any other hands raised that we know of. So, um I'll go to public comment. Maria, >> great. Maria, put yourself out. Um you're asking to unmute. I'm not I'm gonna stay muted. Um, as long as you can hear me that might get me back. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Okay. Um, okay. So, uh, a couple things back to to Sean's, uh, question about cost with 53,000 square feet at a estimate of $600 to $800 per square foot. If that is construction costs um and you add on 25% soft cost that's talking somewhere between 40 and 52 months. If that 600 to 800 is all costs it's still 32 to 42 million. So I I think that that has to be considered to to the other points of scaling back um and being um the uh a plea to please make the materials that wrote available to the members of the committee available in the packet because it's very hard to follow along. Um and I'm trying to do screenshots and try and see what what's up there. So could you please put that available before the meetings ideally? Um and my last comment is about site location. I understand that you are still doing evaluations at these two sites, but I just want to make sure that the town's looking into this holistically. There is another project that's very important that needs to happen in this town and that's a south fire station which has been trying to get off the ground since the mid 20th century. Um, so however you you're going to have to make decisions based on the sites you hear and I think part of your decision is going to have to be where would the fire station go and where would be a good site and if the only place to put the existing with the south fire station that made sense in terms of response times to the vast majority of people who full-time residents who live in the South the ambers that has to go on the existing DPW site and that's part of the equation. Um and I think response times of ambulance and fire is uh I think that trumps um decisions about the centrality of central location of the defility. So thank you Mr. Marshall >> Marshall 64E Maria I totally agree with that comment that comment needs to go to town council because town this committee is doing what town council has asked to do to look at these two sites they don't have the jurisdiction to look at something else so town council needs to change its direction to this committee >> I've got a counselor and a town manager sitting here so I Paul used to hear. >> Yeah. >> Um I I will also continue with your question and with your your request to get things like Bob's memo into the packet in advance of relief. >> All I saw was the mints and the agenda. >> Yeah. >> I did the request for I Yeah. Yes. In the future there will be a greater effort made to make sure than goes in the packet. I mean it should be it should be in the packet days before half a week before the next meeting. I mean they're clearly working on some of the material this morning. So none of us draft the program that you had a week ago or two weeks ago. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> That's the part we have an aggressive schedule. So I think we're racing, but information needs to go unpacked so people know what the hell's going on. Yeah. >> Anything else for solution? >> No. Okay. So, I think there's nobody else out in Okay, we're good. Um, I don't have any other topics that are anticipated. So, I will see you all next month on the 21st. Thank you all for coming. actually already. Yes.