Planck Vision Systems\ub294 \ub2e4\uc74c\uacfc \uac19\uc740 \uc0c1\uc5c5\uc6a9 \uc560\ud50c\ub9ac\ucf00\uc774\uc158\uc758 \ud734\ub300\uc6a9 \uac80\uc0ac \ubc0f \uc5f0\uc911\ubb34\ud734 \ubaa8\ub2c8\ud130\ub9c1\uc744 \uc704\ud55c \uc5f4\ud654\uc0c1 \uc194\ub8e8\uc158\uc744 \uc81c\uc870\ud569\ub2c8\ub2e4: \uc870\uae30 \ud654\uc7ac \uac10\uc9c0, \uc81c\uc870, \ubcc0\uc804\uc18c \ubc0f \ud130\ub110, \uc804\uae30 \ud328\ub110\/\uce90\ube44\ub2db, \uc800\uc7a5 \uc2dc\uc124, \ub370\uc774\ud130 \uc13c\ud130, \uccb4\uc628 \uc0c1\uc2b9 \uac80\uc0ac \ub4f1 \ub2e4\uc591\ud55c \ubd84\uc57c\uc5d0\uc11c \ud65c\uc6a9\ub418\uace0 \uc788\uc2b5\ub2c8\ub2e4. \uc800\ud76c \ud68c\uc0ac\ub294 \ubbf8\uad6d \uc801\uc678\uc120 \uac10\uc9c0 \uae30\uc220\uc758 \uc911\uc2ec\uc9c0\uc778 \uce98\ub9ac\ud3ec\ub2c8\uc544\uc8fc \uc0b0\ud0c0\ubc14\ubc14\ub77c\uc5d0 \ubcf8\uc0ac\ub97c \ub450\uace0 \uc788\uc2b5\ub2c8\ub2e4. 2020\ub144\uc5d0 \uc124\ub9bd\ub41c \uc800\ud76c \ub514\uc790\uc778 \ud300\uc740 15\ub144 \uc774\uc0c1 \uc5f4\ud654\uc0c1\/\uc2e4\ud654\uc0c1 \uce74\uba54\ub77c \uc2dc\uc2a4\ud15c\uacfc \ud604\uc7ac \uc804 \uc138\uacc4\uc5d0 \uc720\ud1b5\ub418\ub294 \uc81c\ud488\uc744 \ud568\uaed8 \uac1c\ubc1c\ud574 \uc654\uc73c\uba70, \uace0\uac1d\uc758 \uace0\uc720\ud55c \uc5f4\ud654\uc0c1 \uc694\uad6c\ub97c \ucda9\uc871\ud558\uae30 \uc704\ud574 \uace0\uac1d\uacfc \ud611\ub825\ud558\ub294 \uac83\uc744 \uc804\ubb38\uc73c\ub85c \ud569\ub2c8\ub2e4. \ub2f9\uc0ac\uc758 \uc785\uc99d\ub41c \uc2dc\uc2a4\ud15c\uc740 \uc5d0\ub108\uc9c0 \uc0dd\uc0b0 \ubc0f \uc720\ud1b5, \uc2dd\ud488 \uc0dd\uc0b0, \uc6b4\uc1a1, \uc0b0\uc5c5 \uc790\ub3d9\ud654 \ubc0f \uccb4\uc628 \uc0c1\uc2b9(EBT) \uac10\uc9c0\ub97c \uc704\ud55c \uc0c1\uc5c5\uc6a9 \uc560\ud50c\ub9ac\ucf00\uc774\uc158\uc5d0 \uc804 \uc138\uacc4\uc801\uc73c\ub85c \uc124\uce58\ub418\uc5c8\uc2b5\ub2c8\ub2e4.
The Finance Committee discussed the proposed DPW\/ fire substation project on Tuesday.
The Finance Committee discussed the proposed DPW\/fire substation project on Tuesday.<\/p>\n
The Finance Committee discussed the proposed DPW\/ fire substation project on Tuesday.
The Finance Committee discussed the proposed DPW\/fire substation project on Tuesday.
The Finance Committee took a small step toward moving the proposed Department of Public Works (DPW) and fire substation facility forward during a meeting held on Tuesday, August 19<\/span>.
The committee unanimously approved transferring up to $50,000 from the reserve fund to help with costs associated with exploring other options for the project.
Town Manager George H. \u201cBud\u201d Dunham said that consultants for the project have been looking at ways to reduce costs and ultimately the size of the structures.
Chairman Ed Collupy asked if a reserve fund transfer could be a possibility to help continue the work and answer outstanding questions.
Dunham explained that when significant requests are made, sometimes the town receives bills related to the additional work and other times it is included.
He said that if he had to guess, it would cost around $25,000 to $50,000 to answer outstanding questions.
\u201cSo long as we are focusing on this site, and reductions and scope on this site, that range would make sense. If we were looking at another site, then that would really blow up what the design fees would like. They\u2019ve done all of the existing conditions work and the geotechnical work and the volume of cut and fill, so they have a good idea on those items for this site,\u201d Assistant Town Manager Heather B. Harper said. \u201cIf we are looking at another location, then we\u2019d really be going back to the drawing board on design at that point.\u201d
The committee had been asked to consider three questions related to if they agree with the need for the buildings, the proposed location and the associated cost of approximately $58 million.
Finance Committee Vice Chairwoman Crystal J. Smith noted that she felt everyone on the committee has recognized that there is a need to update the two buildings. However, she noted that she has heard members of the public asking why there is a need for a new fire station, as the station on Quaker Meetinghouse Road was recently built.
\u201cHaving [both the DPW and the fire station] there, I think that is a need as well because of storms, shared bunks and making things quicker,\u201d she said.
Finance Committee member Kevin Klein said that although he agreed there is a need to update both buildings in upcoming years, he is unsure if it is best to pursue both projects at the same time.
\u201cI am not convinced on location,\u201d he added.
Klein asked DPW Director Paul S. Tilton if putting the DPW \u201cin the hole\u201d on a constrained site would be an ideal location.
\u201cAs far as the site is concerned, I think if someone said, \u2018Paul pick any site, anywhere as big as you want,\u2019 would this be it? No, it would not; it\u2019s not ideal in terms of the size,\u201d Tilton said. \u201cUnfortunately, we don\u2019t have the luxury to just pick a site that\u2019s perfect for the DPW. I think we do like the site, we like the location, [it\u2019s] close to Route 6, we like the fact that it\u2019s next door to the landfill and transfer station.\u201d
Klein also asked if there is a second preferred location for the fire department, and noted that there may be some potential savings when it comes to the bunk rooms for off-duty firemen.
\u201cNot a huge savings there, I can\u2019t imagine, but there is a perception of it\u2019s a fire department, not a hotel, and every little bit we can save will help,\u201d he said.
Finance Committee member Bob J. Guerin said that he thought the three questions were \u201cgoofy\u201d because the questions the committee asked in the past have gone unanswered.
\u201cI think everyone at the table will say there is a need, I think the very next question is, a need for what?,\u201d he asked. \u201cIf somebody said, \u2018I need a car,\u2019 we might all agree they need a car, but then you have choices. You could get a\u2026Kia, you could get a Mercedes, you could get a Rolls-Royce. But everyone would agree you need a car, not everyone would agree you need a Rolls-Royce.\u201d
He added that when it came to the cost, he believed that every committee member expressed \u201cloudly and clearly\u201d that the proposal was too expensive.
Finance Committee member Jeffery Picard said that he viewed the three questions as a litmus test.
\u201cI think the need has been demonstrated, what has not been demonstrated in my mind, though, is a solution; just because there is a need doesn\u2019t mean, therefore, we need new buildings,\u201d Picard said.
He said that he believed the DPW needs to be addressed first due to restraints on the current site and risks for employees.
Nancy A. Crossman noted that she felt like the alternate locations presented at the last meeting were skimmed over and that a traffic light would likely be needed in the proposed location, adding that there is already a significant amount of traffic in the area.
\u201cI know that everybody wants to see different locations, and why this one was chosen, but how much is it going to cost for us to go back and keep looking at other locations?\u201d Smith asked.
Collupy asked about getting a sense of other future projects.
Dunham said that the school district recently got a quote to the tune of $135,000 for a review of all three buildings to determine upcoming facility needs.
He said that if the committee wanted to do a reserve fund transfer for that project, then the school district would be able to proceed quickly.
Guerin made a motion to approve the transfer; however, Crossman asked if the school committee had already voted on the matter.
Harper said that she was not sure.
Klein noted that it would be unusual to approve of a reserve fund transfer without being asked to do so first.
Guerin said that he would withdraw the proposal; however, he said that \u201cuntil we know what else for major capital projects is looming, however long that takes, this proposal isn\u2019t going to be advancing.\u201d
He changed his motion to add that it is conditional upon the approval of the school committee.
In addition to the review of the school buildings, Habeeb and Associates also provided a quote of $155,000 for the same process on the town buildings.
However, Dunham said that town officials thought that price tag was \u201cexorbitant and unnecessary\u201d and that the review work could be done internally.
Picard asked why the price tag to review the school was seen as adequate, but not the price of reviewing town buildings.
Dunham said that it is likely due to Habeeb and Associates specializing in school buildings.
While the motion was still on the table, Dunham spoke with Select Board member R. Patrick Ellis, who was in the audience. Dunham said that Ellis noted that the item was not on the agenda.
He said that he will check with town counsel if another meeting is necessary.
Dunham joked about the committee being in \u201ca giving mood\u201d and asked if they would consider an additional reserve fund transfer to help answer questions regarding the location of the proposed project.
Finance Director William Jennings said that if the $50,000 is not spent, it will go back to the reserve fund.
Finance Committee member Matthew D. Anderson said that approving more funds for further studies could \u201csend a mixed message to the townspeople.\u201d
\u201cWe are sitting up here saying\u2026we are so concerned with the taxpayers\u2019 money, but we are going to expend an additional $50,000 to look at locations that have already been looked at,\u201d he said.
Guerin said that having an independent review of the location could give committee members and taxpayers more confidence around the project, even if the current location is selected.
\u201cI don\u2019t think that the public is going to be any more sold because one more, or two more people or three more people on a finance committee are saying \u2018I am sold,\u2019\u201d Anderson said. \u201cI don\u2019t think we hold that power over the public\u2026they don\u2019t pay attention in the first place; that\u2019s why we are here.\u201d
Fire Chief John J. Burke said that he is supportive of the additional $50,000 due to being in a position where options need to be explored.
\u201cI\u2019ve done a lot of work with the insurance companies leading into this, and I\u2019ll just mention to the committee here that if we can move that ladder truck North of Route 6 and West of 6A, our insurance score goes up four points,\u201d Chief Burke said. \u201cIt doesn\u2019t seem like a lot, but once we go to regional dispatch and we get reevaluated, we go up to an [Insurance Services Office rating] two, that is really important information.\u201d
\u201cIf we can get something in that area and get the ladder truck there, there is going to be significant insurance benefits for us,\u201d he said.
The committee approved of both reserve fund transfers, however, Dunham noted that he would have to check with town counsel to ensure that the vote is \u201ckosher.\u201d
Your comment has been submitted.<\/p>\n