Online Services

Pay Online
Online Vehicle Registration Renewal Online Property Tax, Water & Sewer payments Online Dog License Renewals Vital Record Request E-Reg Estimates
GIS & Property Database

View of Carroll from Sugarloaf

Minutes of Town Board Meetings

Search Minutes of Town Board Meetings

2017 Building Committee Archives

Older Archives

Back to 2024 Records

Informational Session, 9/28/2017 APPROVED

October 13th, 2017

Town of Carroll Building Committee Third Informational Session Minutes
September 28, 2017 @ 7:00 p.m.
Carroll Town Hall

The purpose of the Sep. 28th Building Committee (the “Committee”) third informational session was to share with the community concept drawings, floor plans and elevations for new public safety and administrative facilities on town-owned land, entertain questions and seek feedback, and to discuss project cost, schedule, and property tax implications.

The first informational session was held on Jan. 31st and the second informational session was held on Jun. 22nd.

Sign-in sheets were provided for those interested in providing their contact information. About 80 people attended the session.

The session was opened at 7:00 p.m. by Imre Szauter and was recorded. Questions and comments presented during the informational session are paraphrased and highlighted in red, underlined and italicized in the minutes.

The session began with a welcome to all attendees and an invitation for those interested to join the Committee to better represent the community.

An agenda was presented, which included:
• Introductions
• Objectives and accomplishments
• Process
• Existing buildings analysis
• Architectural discussion
• Conceptual drawing, elevations and floor plans
• Cost, schedule and property tax implication
• Questions?
• Concluding remarks

Attendees were encouraged to ask questions and offer comments during the presentation, and were reminded that time had been reserved at the end of the presentation for additional questions and discussion.

Imre Szauter began introductions by identifying the three Selectmen in attendance: Chairman Brian Mycko, Paul Bussiere and David Scalley. He then introduced project manager Allan Clark and architect Peter Stewart. Finally, he introduced Committee members Tadd Bailey (police department), Mike Finn (citizen), John Gardiner (Emergency Management Director), Greg Hogan (Public Works Supervisor), Michael Hogan (citizen), Brad Houston (fire department), Bonnie Moroney (citizen and former Select Board member), Janet Nelson (citizen), Jeremy Oleson (Fire Chief), Terry Penner (citizen), Julie Roesbury (citizen), and John Trammell (Police Chief). He stated that all Committee meetings are open to the public and agendas, minutes and other documents are posted on the Town of Carroll website at http://www.townofcarroll.org under the “Town Meeting Minutes > Building Committee” tab.

Imre Szauter reviewed the objectives and accomplishments of the Committee.

Imre Szauter acknowledged that in his haste to begin the informational session, he overlooked inviting attendees to rise and recite the Pledge of Allegiance. He paused the meeting, asking attendees to stand and join him in the Pledge of Allegiance, then apologized for his error.

Imre Szauter introduced project manager Allan Clark and provided a brief biography of his work.

Allan Clark opened a discussion of the process followed by the Committee. He emphasized the main purpose of the informational session was not to get residents to vote for the project but to share information on how the Committee developed the concept being presented tonight and seek feedback from the community.

Referring to the Phase One process, Allan Clark offered that a thorough needs analysis was conducted to determine the requirements of the police and fire departments and the administrative offices. Factors such as the growing demands on public safety and administrative services, rapidly-changing technologies, energy efficiency, and existing buildings that do not meet current life- and fire-safety codes all contribute to inefficiencies that have and will continue to challenge the town.

Allan Clark suggested that the time has come to address the needs and deficiencies sooner than later, as delays in implementing practical solutions will cost the town more in the long run. He indicated the town is fortunate to already have a desirable 13 acre parcel of land at the northwest corner of US 3 and US 302. Allan Clark mentioned the topographical survey and soil testing that were completed earlier this year, both of which confirmed favorable conditions for a building site.

Allan Clark stated that preliminary specifications were necessary to guide the architect, a task that he and the Committee completed in early June. Following the selection of architect Peter Stewart of Stewart Associates Architects of Laconia, New Hampshire by the Committee, the process of translating the specifications into conceptual plans began. Requirements were established that the design must be simple to construct and maintain, must be energy efficient, and must be expandable in the future.

Allan Clark emphasized that the drawings to be presented this evening are conceptual and not construction drawings. They are meant to convey space size estimates and locations for identified public safety and administrative functions, with emphasis on efficient flow of personnel within the buildings. Solid conceptual plans are necessary to begin the cost estimation process.

In order to present a complete package for consideration at the February deliberative session, all cost estimating must be completed by year’s end so the community will have at least one additional opportunity to review and comment on the proposal. Allan Clark emphasized that the project cost will include everything necessary for town functions to easily move into their new facilities, not just the cost of constructing the buildings.

Everything Allan Clark covered to this point has been included in Phase One. The end goal of Phase One is to provide voters at the February deliberative session a warrant article containing a description of the project, to be constructed using a design/build approach, with a guaranteed not-to-exceed maximum cost.

Assuming passage of a warrant article in March 2018, the project would begin the Phase Two process. The specifications and drawings developed in Phase One would be included in an RFP (Request for Proposal) for distribution to several Construction Managers. Following interviews with Construction Managers who submit proposals, one would be chosen to implement the project by finalizing the plans with emphasis on simplified construction techniques to hold costs down. The selected Construction Manager would work under a cost-plus contract with a guaranteed maximum price. The Construction Manager would specify their general conditions and identify all work needed to complete the project. Expected commencement of construction would be in June/July 2018 and completion by the first of the New Year (2019).

The project manager’s responsibilities during the Phase Two process include overseeing the project schedule, monitoring costs, resolving any outstanding issues while acting as the intermediary between the town and the Construction Manager, and ensuring the project is being constructed according to the specifications.

Allan Clark opened a discussion on the existing buildings analysis. He highlighted issues identified in the current Town Hall, including structure and energy inefficiencies, Fire Code violations, and the closure of the 3,900 sf (square feet) gymnasium. Allan Clark explained that the Fire Code, which requires compliance of all non-residential structures regardless of when they were built, differs from the Building Code, which requires compliance at the time of construction and whenever significant changes or renovations occur within a structure.

When comparing the Town Hall $1.68 million renovation cost analysis estimate completed by George Brodeur in 2014, to an estimated cost of about $1.25 million for new construction, the Committee determined that it was in the town’s best long-term interest to recommend new construction. The Committee believes that a private sale of the current Town Hall may best serve taxpayers and the community while giving private investors an opportunity to acquire and repurpose the building.

The fire department building, located on a half-acre parcel of land, has deficiencies that not only reduce its effectiveness as the main fire and rescue service operations and vehicle storage center, but also preclude a practical and economical renovation for another use. At the June 22nd informational session, a question was asked about renovating the fire department building to serve as the new Town Hall. Given that a Town Hall would need at least 4,853 sf of space excluding a community room, the Committee determined a fire department building reuse plan was inappropriate and believes a private sale may be in the best interest of taxpayers and the community.

Allan Clark offered the Franconia Public Safety Facility, completed in 2015, as an example of energy efficiency. The police and fire departments occupy about 9,600 sf of floor space. Their combined operational cost for heating (using propane fuel), cooling and electricity for one year was about $10,000, or approximately $1 per sf. This contrasts with our own public safety (police and fire) buildings’ 7-year average cost for heating fuel and electricity of about $3 per sf.

At the conclusion of Allan Clark’s discussions on the Committee’s process and the existing buildings analysis, Imre Szauter asked if there were any questions.

Question: How long is Allan Clark’s project management contract with the town?

Allan Clark responded by stating that his contract runs through the March 2018 town meeting.

Imre Szauter introduced architect Peter Stewart of Stewart Associates Architects of Laconia, New Hampshire.

Peter Stewart opened a discussion on architectural considerations. He outlined his background and elaborated on his work with Allan Clark and the Committee.

Peter Stewart described the criteria and resources he used in creating the conceptual site plan, floor plans and elevations he would be presenting tonight. Because flexibility, durability of materials, layout efficiency and energy efficiency are vital for structures in New Hampshire, he incorporated information from Allan Clark’s June 2017 Preliminary Space Requirements and Cost Predictions document, tours of the public safety buildings and Town Hall, interviews with department heads and employees, and meetings with the Committee.

Peter Stewart described the analysis to led the Committee to determine that two buildings, one for public safety services (police, fire and ambulance) and the other for administrative services (town offices, library, historical society, and food pantry), was a more practical and cost-effective choice than one building. If all services were combined into one structure, stricter and more expensive life- and fire-safety codes would apply throughout the building. In addition, the Committee and others recognize that a typical New England Town Hall should be the center and symbol of the community it supports, meaning that incorporating administrative services into a larger public safety services building would obscure that identity. Finally, future expansion of an already large building is more difficult than with smaller structures.

Peter Stewart led into the discussion of the conceptual site plan, floor plans and elevations with a reminder that these were conceptual, based on space programming requirements, and will be used to develop an overall project cost estimate. They are not construction drawings and may change based on feedback from the community, new information or requirements.

The site plan shows two new buildings on the west and northwestern edges of the 13 acre parcel of town land, with the current Town Hall just south of the new buildings. A new roadway that originates opposite the St. Patrick’s church parking lot entrance on US 302 provides access to a campus setting with adequate parking for employees, police and fire department personnel, and visitors. The first intersection on the left of the new roadway provides access to the current Town Hall. The second intersection on the left provides access to dedicated parking for fire department personnel only. Straight ahead lies the main parking area, with a town green in the center that allows for community access and/or recreational uses. A parking lot to the west of the Town Hall serves community room visitors. Accommodation for the snow mobile trail is proposed along the western border of the property.

Peter Stewart stated that the site plan provides for future expansion, as areas currently shown as either parking or green space could be repurposed if either the public safety services building or Town Hall had to be enlarged to meet future demands. An example of this expansion option might be a stand-alone library and historical society building to the east of the town green and parking lot. He explained the location of the campus on the western portion of the property preserves the ridge and wetlands areas to the east for community recreational uses.

Question: How many acres is the town parcel of land?

Peter Stewart answered that the parcel is about 13 acres.

Question: Is the only proposed access to the gazebo from US 3?

Peter Stewart replied that in this site plan, yes, the portion of School Street from US 3 to the parking area around the gazebo would remain while the rest of School Street would be abandoned.

Question: Why was the Town Hall and library placed near the north property line instead of closer to US 302 and the existing Town Hall; could the Town Hall and library location be switched with the public safety services building?

Peter Stewart explained that the public safety services building requires large vehicle access both on the north and south sides of the building, something not easily achievable if it were located where the Town Hall and library are currently shown.

Comment/question: The location of the relocated snow mobile trail is shown along the western property boundary. In addition, the public safety services building is located close to the property line. Are there any provisions for a sound barrier to lessen noise from the public safety services building and snow mobile trail to the adjacent property to the west?

Allan Clark replied this is exactly the kind of feedback the Committee needs from the community to ensure all relevant issues are taken into consideration. To this point, sound had not come up as an issue in Committee discussions.

Question: Would you explain where the police and fire department vehicle entrances and exits are on the site plan?

Peter Stewart replied by pointing out the fire department apparatus bay doors on the north and south sides and the police department Sally port door on the north side of the public safety services building.

Question: As shown, is it correct to say that all police, fire, ambulance, employee and visitor traffic will share the common driveway from US 302 to the campus? What happens if an emergency vehicle exits the public safety services building while the driveway is in use?

Peter Stewart and Allan Clark answered that the width of the driveway will be at least 24 feet, the standard width of a two-lane road, so sharing it with an emergency vehicle should not be an issue.

Jeremy Oleson commented that the current fire department building access to US 3 is a much worse situation than the proposal shown on the site plan.

Comment: When the warrant article was presented for approval in March 2017, the police and fire departments and Town Hall were included, but not the library and historical society. Because of this, there may be a need to develop a separate warrant article for the library and historical society. The conceptual floor plans need to be flexible so that if the voters decide the library and historical society should not be included in the Town Hall, the plans can be easily modified.

Peter Stewart indicated that was a good point for the Committee to review.

David Scalley offered that sound mitigation from the public safety building could include an agreement that emergency vehicles not activate their sirens until reaching the roadway intersection with US 302. Jeremy Oleson stated that emergency vehicles have remote control of the traffic signals at the intersection of US 3 and US 302, so typically vehicles leave the building and proceed through the first intersection silently, unless traffic warrants otherwise.

Question: Was there any consideration to moving the public safety services building further to the east and providing a driveway and parking area behind the building for fire department personnel?

Peter Stewart and Allan Clark explained that they believe the dedicated parking for fire department personnel on the southwest corner of the public safety services building is adequate and safe, while a driveway and parking area behind the building may not work as intended.

Question: With 13 acres available, why does the site plan push everything to the left (west) side of the property? Is it the topography?

Peter Stewart and Allan Clark explained that the topography of the site made it such that site excavation and preparation work would be minimized by placing the campus on the western portion of the property. In addition, the wetland area along the northeastern and eastern boundaries and the ridge running north-northwest from just north of the gazebo to the north boundary may present future recreational opportunities if the town wishes to develop them.

Question: If there is a large turnout for an event in the community room, is there adequate parking near the Town Hall?

Peter Stewart replied that there are about 70 spaces on the site, which should be adequate for most events.

Question: If an expansion of either building is needed in the future, how would that be handled?

Peter Stewart explained that the public safety services building could be expanded on the north end. Allan Clark stated that if much more space is needed in the future for the fire department, the police department could be relocated to free up space in that building. Similarly, if the administrative services needed more space, the library and historical society spaces might be available for expansion if those functions were relocated. He stated the campus layout provided opportunities for these expansions, as new buildings to house the police department and/or the library and historical society could be built if needed.

Peter Stewart introduced the public safety services building elevations. The first view is of the east side of the building, which visitors would see from the parking area and town green, and shows the fire department’s public entrance on the left and the police department’s public entrance on the right. The second view is of the south side of the building, showing three apparatus bay doors and two doors for fire department personnel. Allan Clark and Peter Stewart explained that the simplified structure and quality materials will make the building durable, easier to construction and maintain, and pleasant to view.

Question: Is the fire department apparatus bay large enough to handle a ladder truck?

Jeremy Oleson answered that the apparatus bay was appropriately sized to handle all current vehicles and would allow standard fire vehicles such as a ladder truck to be housed. The town could save money when acquiring future vehicles because they would not have to be more costly smaller custom versions that are needed to fit the small apparatus bay in the current fire department building.

Question: Is there an approximate cost available for what has been discussed so far?

Allan Clark replied the cost discussion would take place later in the presentation.

Peter Stewart introduced the floor plan drawing for the public safety services building. He pointed out the green spaces belonged to the fire department while the blue spaces were for the police department. Allan Clark stated the new facility would easily accommodate the town’s pancake breakfasts, as a commercial-grade kitchen and plenty of apparatus bay floor space would be available. He also pointed out that the training room doubles as the EOC (Emergency Operations Center), enabling the town to apply for a New Hampshire Homeland Security and Emergency Management grant to offset some of the cost of the EOC.

Question: Has the Building Committee applied for any state or federal grants?

Allan Clark replied that no applications had been submitted because the final design and cost of the project have not yet been determined and approved by the voters.

Question: How much grant money would be available from the state?

Allan Clark answered that typically about $75,000 is available for projects that designate a portion of their floor space for use as an EOC.

David Scalley reminded attendees that the structures would be built using 5 foot frost walls, not slab-on-grade. Allan Clark added that the concrete flooring under the buildings would be 7-8 inches thick for strength and to accommodate buried radiant heat tubing. He also pointed out the concrete’s mass and insulation will moderate temperature swings in the apparatus bay, as the concrete holds a steady temperature compared to the surrounding air.

Peter Stewart introduced the Town Hall elevation drawing. He described the major areas and features, pointing out it fit the profile of a typical New England town hall structure. Allan Clark added that, similar to the public safety services building, the Town Hall would be built on a 5-foot frost wall using simple construction techniques and durable materials.

Peter Stewart introduced the Town Hall floor plan. He highlighted the green area which contains the main entrance, community room and public rest rooms; the blue area which contains the administrative offices and food pantry; and the purple area which contains the library and historical society space.

Question: Are there provisions for fire-proof storage?

Allan Clark replied that there were two types of storage in the design, one classified as “general” and the other classified as “secure” (fire-resistant). General storage would be used for non-critical records, materials and supplies while secure storage would be used for records and materials requiring extra protection by law or for historical reasons. The town clerk’s office has a secure storage area for DMV (Division of Motor Vehicle) materials such as license plates and registration documents, ballots and electronic voting machines for town elections, and customer transaction records. The administrative office has a larger secure storage area for tax and property records, town financial records, and anything else requiring secure storage by law.

Allan Clark reminded attendees that the conceptual drawings were produced to stimulate discussion and feedback from the community, and rather than waste money on a complete design that voters might reject, the Committee and the Select Board requested and received voter approval to allocate $60,000 to put together a plan such as was being presented this evening.

Allan Clark cautioned that rapid technological changes make it more difficult to see 25 years into the future and predict what types and how much office space will be needed by municipal governments. Therefore, it’s in the town’s best interest to adopt flexible building designs and provide open spaces in a campus setting to accommodate future growth, if needed. He also pointed out that the design contains the flexibility to include alternative energy sources such as photovoltaic (solar) panels for onsite electricity generation and geothermal for space heating and cooling.

Question: Could you identify the light blue spaces on the right side of the Town Hall area?

Allan Clark identified the spaces as conference room, (general) storage, treasurer’s office, kitchen/break room, and electrical and server room, but cautioned these are conceptual placements needed for pricing by construction firms.

Question: Regarding the administrator, finance, and town clerk offices, how much space is allocated versus what our current offices use?

Imre Szauter answered that all office spaces in Town Hall were measured and that what is shown on the conceptual drawing provides more space for the administrator, finance and town clerk offices.

Question: Will the community room double as an emergency shelter for residents and if so, are there grant funds available to offset part of the cost of the Town Hall? Will an emergency generator be included in the design?

Allan Clark responded that both Town Hall and the public safety services building will be equipped with emergency power generators, and grant funds may be available to help cover their cost. With regard to emergency sheltering in the community room, Emergency Management Director John Gardiner explained the current MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) that exists between the Town of Carroll and the Omni Mount Washington Resort to shelter town residents in the event of a declared emergency. Allan Clark added that in his community, Sugar Hill, they have a similar MOU with a private facility and use the public space in their Town Hall as a daylight shelter only, with no provisions for overnight accommodations.

Question: What are the spaces shown above the Town Hall lobby area?

Allan Clark answered that they were the public rest rooms.

Comment: The location of the library and the community room should be reversed.

Comment: In order to use the community room as an emergency shelter, perhaps a shower could be installed in each rest room to accommodate those seeking shelter.

Allan Clark opened a discussion about the community room and how the Committee arrived at its size. Members were polled regarding how the now-closed gymnasium was used and how many people typically occupied the space during those activities. Considering public functions, such as deliberative session and town meeting for voting, larger governmental meetings, and private functions, a consensus developed that a 150-person capacity was a good starting point for discussion with the community. Based on 10 sf per person, the community room design should be about 1,500 sf, with the capability to be partitioned into two separate spaces for simultaneous smaller activities if needed. Allan Clark indicated the graphic on display showed a representation of the community room placed inside the gymnasium; the community room is shown as 1,477 sf while the gymnasium is shown as 3,400 sf, not including the 500 sf stage area on the left of the graphic. That translates to the community room being 43% of the size of the gymnasium.

Peter Stewart pointed out that the current Town Hall meeting room where the informational session was taking place measures 32 feet by 24 feet, so it is roughly half the size of the proposed community room.

Allan Clark continued that the size of the community room should be up to the community it serves. With rules established by the Select Board, community room use by individuals and groups both within and outside of the town could become a real asset to the town and its residents.

Question: Would the community room be continually heated?

Allan Clark replied it would be in the best long-term interest of the building’s lifespan to never let the community room go cold. With radiant floor heating, the cost to maintain a comfortable environment in the community room would be considerably less than it was to heat the uninsulated gymnasium.

Question: When discussing community room capacity, do you assume people are standing, sitting, or seated at tables?

Allan Clark answered that the capacity number he uses is based on allocating 10 sf per person, based on stadium-style seating. If using tables and chairs, each person is allocated 15 sf, so the capacity of the room drops to about 100 people.

Question: If additional capacity was needed for the community room, how could it be expanded?

Allan Clark responded that either end (north or south) could be expanded to boost capacity without making major structural changes to the building. Peter Stewart suggested that widening (in the east-west direction) and shortening (in the north-south direction) the community room in the current plan would make future expansion easier and more cost effective.

Question: What was the size of the Mount Washington Resort meeting room where the 2017 town deliberative session took place?

Jeremy Oleson replied that he thought the capacity of that meeting room was about 450 people.

Allan Clark opened a discussion on the project’s cost, schedule and property tax implication. He cautioned that many factors influence the cost of a project, including cost and availability of skilled-trades personnel and materials. Based on what was presented tonight, Allan Clark estimated the project to be in the $3.75 million range. He emphasized this estimate includes everything related to and needed for the project, not just the buildings.

Allan Clark highlighted some of the factors that would affect the property tax rate. New residential and business construction could increase the total assessed value of the town; interest rates for loans and bonds have crept up recently but still remain relatively reasonable; and grant and rebate availability and amounts are unknown. Based on his best estimates, he felt that the property tax implication would be in the range of $75 to $100 per $100,000 valuation.

Question: Does that estimate take into consideration the energy savings the new facilities will achieve?

Allan Clark replied that reduced operational expenses are not factored into the amount he mentioned.

Allan Clark asked attendees to keep in mind that increasing costs of construction and financing make delaying a project of this magnitude even more expensive in the future, along with the added burden of continued operating and maintenance costs of existing facilities.

Question: What is the debt servicing term used in the calculation?

Allan Clark stated he assumed 20 or 25 years for the length of the financial obligation; he felt 30 years was too long.

Question: Are there any estimates on the resale value of the current buildings?

Allan Clark replied he didn’t know the answer to that question, but felt confident the building could be sold if the asking price was properly set.

Comment: The potential energy savings for these new facilities is tremendous when compared to what the town consumes today to heat and light the police and fire departments and Town Hall.

Allan Clark offered that another informational session in January 2018 would have firm answers to the cost and property tax implication questions that were asked tonight.

Question: Will other sources of grants and rebates be explored for this project, besides the ones already mentioned?

Allan Clark responded that he expects the Committee to actively search for sources of additional grants and rebates.

Question: If the project is approved by the voters, will there be any restrictions placed on the purchaser of the current Town Hall and the land it sits on?

Allan Clark and David Scalley both replied that the town has the power to place restrictions in the property deed and any use changes would likely go before the Planning Board for approval.

Question: Would you address the spending by the Building Committee on the warrant article funding approved by voters in March 2017?

Imre Szauter explained the warrant article approved by voters earlier this year in the amount of $60,000 has provided funding to evaluate building options for our public safety and administrative services and to hire and pay for services provided by project manager Allan Clark and architect Peter Stewart. The Committee has used a different funding source to advertise the three informational sessions in the Coos County Democrat and the Caledonian Record, and mail an invitation and informational letter to all property owners prior to tonight’s session.

Question: You mentioned earlier the attractive 1.9% interest rate you secured for the Franconia Public Safety Building project. Did that project’s funding come from the state bond bank?

Allan Clark replied that the Franconia project was financed through Union Bank. He stated that the state bond bank provides attractive rates but places more restrictions on their financial products than commercial lenders place on theirs.

Question: Have you considered selling bonds for the project directly to investors?

Allan Clark replied that neither he nor the Committee had considered that option.

Comment: Regarding grants from various sources, residents can assist the town by checking with their contacts and the groups they belong to for rebates and grants from philanthropic organizations. Grants may be available for recreational or beautification projects that could be included in this proposal.

Allan Clark emphasized the potential for community involvement in this project and how new facilities for the public safety services and administrative offices may serve as a stimulus for growth in the community. A project of this magnitude signals a community pride that may prove attractive for future residential and commercial investment in the community, especially among the many visitors to the area each year.

Comment: Perhaps the voters should decide what happens to the existing Town Hall and fire department building if this project is approved. A private sale of one or both buildings may be the final outcome, but given the strong emotional attachment that some residents have for the Town Hall, giving the voters the final say may be the best solution for the community.

Imre Szauter opened the floor to additional comments and questions from attendees. He asked if a project of this type is viewed as beneficial to the future of the Town of Carroll. Given an overall positive response, he then encouraged more community involvement with the Committee to make sure the feedback from residents and businesses is heard and taken into consideration.

Comment: As part of the Building Committee’s efforts to promote this project, they might want to consider educating the community on the costs of not completing this project, such as ongoing energy, update and maintenance expenses associated with our current buildings. Each year new facilities are delayed, the cost will be greater in the future. At some point, these older buildings must be addressed and that time is now.

Comment: While I support this project, I just don’t want to see the Town Hall become another abandoned building in this town.

Comment: This project is being proposed as an “all or nothing” proposition such that if the voters reject it, the town gains nothing. I think the Building Committee should consider a less expensive partial solution, such as building just the police department building first, then coming back to the voters for additional facilities at a later date.

Comment: I believe any contingency planning would have to be done through individual warrant articles. The warrant article approved in March 2017 authorized the town to spend up to $60,000 to develop a plan for new facilities for the police and fire departments and town administrative offices. That’s what the Building Committee has done with this plan. To restart the process to design individual facilities for each of these functions will delay moving out of inefficient and non-compliant buildings and cost more in the end.

Allan Clark cautioned that there is a significant cost to doing just a portion of a project of this magnitude, as it is not as simple as dividing a $4 million project into two separate $2 million projects with different completion dates. A project’s upfront costs are significant and would drive the cost of two smaller projects higher than the total cost of one larger project.

Comment: We’ve had a good turnout and participation here tonight, so each one of us should take back what we’ve heard to encourage those who could not be here as to why this project should go forward. The better people understand what it’s costing the town to do nothing, the more likely they are to support this project.

Comment: The town should also remember we have two bonds that will be paid off within the next seven years. The water project bond will be paid off in 2022 and the transfer station bond in 2024. While this project will increase our property taxes, we’ll experience some tax relief when the water project and transfer station bonds are retired.

Comment: The Building Committee is considering a tri-fold brochure with project information for use within the community. Facts such as the ongoing operational and maintenance costs for existing buildings and the upcoming retirement of two bonds would help support moving this project forward.

With no other questions or comments from attendees, Imre Szauter closed by again thanking everyone for attending and participating in tonight’s meeting, encouraging them to consider joining the Committee, and providing the town website URL for a copy of the PowerPoint presentation, the concept drawings, and additional information.

The informational session adjourned at 8:47 p.m.

Minutes prepared by Imre Szauter.