Board of Selectmen, May 4, 2017
HOLDEN BOARD OF SELECTMEN/FIN COM/ DPW BUILDING COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
May 4, 2017
7:30PM Memorial Hall
BOS Present: Chairman Anthony Renzoni, Geri Herlihy, Tim Ethier
Fin Com Present: Chairman Dave White, Chris Lucchese, Paul Challenger, Joseph Dolak, Karl Makela, Marilyn Foley, John Lambert, Al Berg, Bill Randell
DPW Building Committee Present: Chairman Dan Nason, Jack Cross, James Kempton, Mark Johnson, Dawn Michanowicz, Bill Randell*
Others Present: Peter Lukes, Town Manager
John Woodsmall, Director DPW/ Ex-Officio Committee Member Building Committee
Ryan Mouradian// Ex-Officio
Jeff Alberti, Weston & Sampson, Program Manager
Frank Cocerti, Weston & Sampson
JP Parnas, Weston & Sampson, Project Manager
Liz Fotos, Town Recorder
The Board of Selectmen had a previous meeting at 7:00PM; they recessed that meeting at 7:31.
Chairman Renzoni called the meeting back to order at7:32PM. He stated for the record that the Board had already conducted the Pledge of Allegiance. Chairman Renzoni stated that this was a joint meeting of the Board of Selectmen, Fin Com, and DPW Building Committee scheduled to discuss the Acquisition of 18 Industrial Drive // DPW Building Project. He stated that the meeting was recorded and would be played on local television.
Dan Nason, Chair, DPW Building Committee was present along with members of this Committee. He stated that the purpose of this meeting was to discuss amongst the Boards the acceptance of 18 Industrial Drive. He stated that representatives from Weston & Sampson were present and had prepared a short presentation to bring everyone up to speed on the property and then answer any questions.
D. Nason stated that everyone had a copy of the Phase II Assessment Report of 18 Industrial Drive and everything discussed could be found in detail in the report.
Jeff Alberti, Program Manager, Weston & Sampson was present at the meeting and presented a slide show. He stated that the slide show was meant to give a high level overview and then he would be pleased to answer any questions the Boards may have.
J. Alberti stated that 18 Industrial Drive was identified as the highest ranked site for a future Public Works Facility. He stated that once it was identified it was a goal to assess the property for potential risks and benefits for the Town. He stated that once the Town is able to acquire the property, it will allow for the process to continue towards a comprehensive plan and cost estimate of the work.
J. Alberti stated they began work as part of a multi phase feasibility study for the DPW. He stated that they:
-detailed programming study
-determined and redefined programming spaces needed and
-determined the size of the project and minimum sites needed.
He stated that they wanted to understand what Holden needed as a community and then use that information to come up with a project. He stated that they met with the Building Committee and spent time coming up with a preferred recommended program so they were able to do a generic site plan and building plan that allowed them to move to the next phases which were the feasibility study and site selections.
Feasibility Study / Site Selection
-detailed survey of potential Town owned and private sites
-sites scored and ranked
J. Alberti stated that after 18 Industrial Drive was identified as the preferred option they did some cost estimates that were for renovating a portion of the building and demolishing the older parts of the buildings. He stated that at this point there were some contingencies introduced.
J. Alberti stated that the estimated contingency to cover any unknown and the construction contingency was an estimated $1.8 Million and they did use that contingency to offset the detailed estate of the site.
J. Alberti stated that when doing the assessment of 18 Industrial Drive they wanted to do their due diligence to identify the components that could have cost implication and vet them so that they would know the viability of the building and the site. He stated that they focused on environmental risk and risks and benefits of the existing building.
J. Alberti stated that 18 Industrial Drive was a 23 acre site with 120,000sf of estimated building. He stated that there was up to 5 possible additions made to the original building.
Environmental:
J. Alberti stated that they wanted to identify a baseline for the known environmental contamination issues, estimate potential costs for ongoing environmental monitoring the Town would be liable for after taking ownership, prepare a proposed remediation plan and associated cost estimate for regulated clean-up of the contaminated areas.
Engineering:
J. Alberti stated that they wanted to identify potential problems or high risk area of the building that could cause costs down the line. The following areas were evaluated:
- Geotechnical
- Structural
- Mechanical
- Plumbing
- Fire Protection
- Electrical
- Hazardous Materials
- Roofing
- Elevator
Architectural
J. Alberti stated that they had evaluated the existing building for re-use of the proposed Public Works Facility. They looked at the existing conditions of the building, examined the zoning and permitting requirements related to the proposed re use and used a detailed schematic layout of the building in order to demonstrated that the building was suited for the proposed reuse and program. He stated that the schematic layout was based on the program and conceptual layouts developed with the DPW Building Committee.
Environmental Assessment
J. Alberti stated that three areas were determined to contain hazardous materials
- Southern Area/ Disposed of material from filtering
- Oil Room/ Subbasement in building and in bedrock where oil was stored
- Western Area
J. Alberti stated that they had gone through and evaluated the previous reports on the property and then went in with their own LSP and did the evaluation again. He stated that the goal was to remediate the sites so that the Town did not have ongoing costs associated with the areas.
- Southern Area: Hydrogen Peroxide treatment has been effective. He stated that this site can likely be closed out through a risk assessment.
- Oil Filtration Room Area: It is Weston & Sampson’s opinion that this area can be easily remediates during the proposed redevelopment of the building and they recommend removal and closing out this disposal site area.
- Western Area: Contamination is stable and not migrating. Additional evaluation is needed and no remedial actions are recommended.
J. Alberti stated that as far as the contamination areas go, they know the areas, they are well defined and there is a good remediation plan in place.
Engineering Assessment
-Geotechnical: Found that site soils were suitable for foundation of new construction
-Structural: Found that there will need to be some additional bracing needed and they will need to reinforce some of the steel for new building requirements. He stated that roof structure and slabs were suitable for vehicle traffic but because of age and through continued use there will be a maintenance issue.
-Mechanical/ Plumbing/ Electrical/ Fire Protection: Recommended all of these needed to be replaced and bought up to new codes
-Roof: Recommended removal and replacement of the roof. He stated there was a cost estimate for this provided.
-Elevator: Recommended upgrades to the existing elevator rather than a new elevator
Building Assessment:
Architectural Assessment:
Weston & Sampson provided a schematic architectural layout with the proposed DPW Facility. Gray is Maintenance, Yellow is vehicle storage, light blue is wash bay, purple is administration and staff, green is shops. He stated that they were reusing some of the slabs and trying to maintain as much of the building as possible.
Cost Implications
Environmental Cost Estimate: Potential Cost $638,000
Total Potential Cost Estimate: $4,318,000
J. Alberti stated that in summary the total potential cost was $4,318,000 and estimated about a year ago was $2,800,000. He stated the total added cost is $1,500,000. He stated as he mentioned before they carry $1,600,000 in estimated contingencies and that is intended to be used. He stated that as they obtain more data that number drops and the construction costs rise and that is why they use contingencies in this process. He stated keeping in mind the contingencies, there is a total difference of about $550,000 based on the assessment of all the major components that have cost implications.
J. Alberti stated that in conclusion, 18 Industrial Drive was identified as the best site. It is the right size and in the right location. There is no acquisition cost of the property and the environmental issues are well documented and confirmed as well as manageable. He stated that the major building system have been identified and can be addressed and by using a portion of the existing building and structure the Town can construct a much needed DPW Facility that will improve overall safety and efficiency and will protect the Towns multi-million dollar investment in the fleet all while maintaining costs.
J. Alberti opened the floor up for questions.
Chairman Renzoni thanked J. Alberti. He asked the Boards/Commissions to keep their questions specific to 18 Industrial Drive as the property as they were not at the proposed project as of yet.
D. Nason stated that he wanted the Boards to know that he waned to clarify the language being used and the warrant article would actually be for “Acceptance of a gift through agreement”
Chairman Renzoni stated that the property had been vacant for some time and the owners wanted to do something with it. He stated that the Town was approached about acquiring it.
Al Berg, Fin Com, stated that the Southern Area ran under the building. He stated that the last official DEP action was a notice of non-compliance. He asked what the latest from DEP was on this and what was the remediation for this non-compliance was.
J. Alberti stated that the Notice of Non-Compliance was regarding the soil on the site. He stated that DEP will provide the notice and expect that the owner will address it. He stated that the soil in question has been disposed of and that the weekly status report they receive indicates the matter has been resolved by the owners at this point.
A Berg asked what the Town would be liable for from now until the project does or does not go through if the land was accepted.
Mr. Lukes stated that there were three line items budged for DPW.
John Woodsmall, Director, DPW stated that they were looking at $85,000 between cost for any additional monitoring needed, DEP Reporting, and the bare utilities on the site; water, sewer, electric, and gas within the garage. He stated it was part of the DPW/ General Fund Budget.
J. Woodsmall stated that they anticipate the monitoring costs to go down as the sites are currently being treated as three separate sites. He stated that currently DEP goes to each site 2/3 times and that there is a process that will allow the sites to be combined and lesson the trips from DEP to the property. He stated regardless of that, the money is being covered through the General Fund DPW Budget.
A Berg reiterated that it would be $85,000/ year until there is an approved project for the property. He asked if there were any kind of close out costs they would be liable for on the sites.
J. Woodsmall stated it is his understanding that if the Town accepts the property as is, they will have to continue along with the monitoring and remediation in the southern area but that there is nothing else that would need to be done.
Frank Cocerti, Weston & Sampson stated that each area has a temporary solution to it and there is no substantial hazardous material found at each site. He stated that is the condition and they would be required to do monitoring and reports for five years that support that.
D. Nason stated that there is a risk that they would have with regards to the condition of the building if the Town does accept the property. He stated there is also the fact that right now the Town has over $750,000 of their own inventory being stored at that location. He stated that if something happens the Town would have no place to put this inventory.
Paul Challenger, Fin Com asked if the Town accepts the building and actively uses it as suggested would that trigger a need to do something.
Dave White, Fin Com entered the meeting at 7:59PM.
D. Nason replied that nothing was triggered until there was disturbance to the soil.
Karl Makela, Fin Com asked what the insurance cost was associated with the building.
Mr. Lukes replied he did not know but he would find out. He stated it would be insured along with Town owned properties.
Chairman Renzoni asked Mr. Lukes to have that answer prior to Town Meeting.
Mr. Lukes stated that outside the scope of work, it was mentioned that the building was expanded a number of times. He asked how much of rest of the building could be salvaged if the Town wanted to use it for something else.
J. Alberti replied that the back was not salvageable based on age and they delineated it and came up with 62,400sq ft was easily upgradable.
Mr. Lukes asked if the only salvage portion was already outlined.
J. Alberti agreed.
Chairman Renzoni stated that there are three known sites of hazardous material on the property. He asked how they would know that there was not something else that could be discovered through the construction process.
J. Alberti stated that during phase 1 they were able to look at the environmental process. He stated that they have years of data on this site so that is reassuring factor for investment and a lot of those factors make it an easier recommendation because of the amount of data that has been collected. He stated that if something was identified there is the construction contingency that would allow them to address it in the process.
J. Woodsmall stated that the history of the property is well documented as was the uses at the site. He stated that they had done their due diligence and they have a good handle on the major issues.
F. Cocerti, stated that the site had been managed for twenty years and the previous owners had to define the nature and extent of the contamination. He stated that there was some risk but if the site is maintained there is no substantial hazard. He stated that this site has twenty years of management, DEP involvement, and a reputable firm was the previous owner. He stated that the Town was going into this with their eyes wide open.
P. Challenger stated that the history of the site was well known; he asked about the wooded area behind the building.
J. Woodsmall stated that he does not have any specific information about that part but it is an undisturbed area.
P. Challenger asked if there was potential for the land back there and what was the elevation on it.
D. Nason stated that some interested people have approached them already about that. He stated that he can’t say exactly what it is but there is some value associated with the land. He said that it would depend on the use and what portion but if it was sold, it could be money into the Towns pocket.
P. Challenger stated there were three areas of contamination. He asked about the metal shavings in the western area.
J. Alberti stated that they recommended removing that so the Town could close it out and stop monitoring it.
P. Challenger asked if the oil had leeched or spread.
F. Cocerti stated that there was a lot of information at the site and all up and down the area which was required to determine the extent of the contamination. He stated that was budgeted for as well.
P. Challenger asked about the monitoring of the site.
F. Cocerti stated that was the performance standards of Mass Contingency plan so you know what it is before you can make plans to do anything with it.
J. Alberti stated that the area was shrinking.
Sel. Ethier stated that it would be $638,000 for the environmental clean up. He asked if what was being proposed was removal of the materials.
F. Cocerti stated that any area with source materials that could leech into an area they wanted to get rid of. He stated that it is the most conservative approach they can take and there would be some continued monitoring after that work
Sel. Ethier asked if the building had been vacant for twenty years.
F. Cocerti stated that the environmental activity with DEP had been going on for twenty years.
P. Challenger stated that inside the building it looked as though they were able to do a visual inspection. He asked if they were able to anything more evasive behind the walls or anything.
J. Alberti stated that the Town would need to own the property to begin the more evasive process but they did visually inspect, use the age of the facility, and use their knowledge of other similar facilities to come up with a conservative estimate to address anything that appeared suspect.
Sel. Ethier asked that if once the hazardous materials were cleaned up were there any types of land use that were prohibited or could they do anything on the additional acreage.
F. Cocerti stated that it depended on the risk assessment that closed out the site on a permanent basis. He stated if there were residual impacts the Town could put a prohibited use on the land. He stated that typically there is a site specific risk assessment done and what is found in the ground tells you more. He stated that it really would depend on after construction what is found and what the continued monitoring tells you.
P. Challenger asked if there was any clause that was negotiated in the agreement that would protect the town from buyers remorse or if anything was found.
Mr. Lukes replied there was not and that if the Town accepted it; it was ours.
Chairman Renzoni encouraged the Boards to ask all their questions. He stated that he understood that the report bought the risk down but the experts were here as well as all the Committees so now was the time to ask.
P. Challenger asked the Committee to go over why they felt this was the best site. He stated that they indicated it was the number once choice but he asked what the advantages to it were.
D. Nason stated that the Committee did a site analysis and they looked at over two dozen sites.
J. Woodsmall stated they reviewed all town owned sites in addition to commercial and private owned properties.
D. Nason stated that the Committee did look at all potential sites regardless of ownership if they had the size requirements. He stated that was where they started the process.
D. Nason stated from there they looked at the environment, permitting, zoning, and the “not in my backyard” issue. He stated that a matrix was created to look at various things and through the process it was determined that 18 Industrial Drive was the best site location. He stated it was due to size, location, district, Main Street/ centrally located and more. He stated that the matrix devalued the property based on the known environmental issues and it still was the overwhelmingly best site.
P. Challenger stated that he knew all the factors that were just mentioned because they had been through this extensively but he wanted to make sure that everyone listening knew it as well. He stated that he understood that when they were looking at the Public Safety Building they did not want to be cut off by the train tracks for a liability and public safety standpoint but that he felt that DPW was not the same thing as fire/ ambulance/ police and the other side of the tracks was okay for this type of facility.
D. Nason stated that if they were going to look at other sites that were identified on the matrix before you even address acquisition costs, there is preliminary construction costs, new building costs, and more. He stated there were multiple reason this site was the best.
P. Challenger stated that the property was useless unless they did the $4.3million in renovations. He stated they cant use the building as is. He stated that didn’t mean it was not a good deal but he wanted to be clear that there was a liability then the assessed value.
D. Nason stated that was true but that they can use it for more functions as well. He stated that they already store equipment there, they could also store toters and other things. He stated they don’t have to spend that right away as it was not imminent at all.
P. Challenger stated that before using the building they needed to do the $4.3 million in work. He stated that they needed to compare that cost to another piece of land. He stated that it was expensive but they don’t know if it is more or less expensive than another parcel.
Chris Lucchesi, Fin Com stated that in the interest of full disclosure, they had stated that the property was worth about $2.6million. He stated that would make the tax income just south of $50,000. He asked the Board what that figure was.
Mr. Lukes replied it was about $40,000-$45,000.
Dave White, Fin Com stated that he thinks the numbers were misleading because if you were to build a building, pay for an elevator and roof it would be more expensive. He stated that this is remediation and replacement so if you back those numbers out it would be a different figure so you needed to take that into consideration for the overall cost of a building as well.
D. Nason stated that construction would be a different conversation. He stated that the way they were approaching this was with a remodeling cost.
D. Nason stated that with regards to the $50,000 in property tax that they were collecting as a Town; you would be surprised to see how much of the building was being used for storage. He stated that they have been very fortunate that they have not been charged to store the vehicles in the space over the years. He stated that the assumed value is $2.6 Million and if they go in and do the clean up for around $600,000 it is a great investment for the Town even without a DPW Building. He stated that original estimate for clean up was $1,000,000 and they were very comfortable with the monitoring that was done. He stated that the engineers wanted to get on the site and they did and the estimates went down. He stated that as the DPW Committee they asked for certain things and the engineers did them and as a Committee they did everything they could.
D. Nason stated that as far as the destructive work, they could not do that because they did not own the property. He stated the owners did not want anything destroyed so they had to give their best guess so using information they had such as age similar buildings they made a estimate about flooring, asbestos, and other things. He stated they obviously could not go in and do large testing and destroy the property.
P. Challenger stated that they were talking about keeping the newer section and taking down the older part of the building. He asked as a whole, are they keeping the right size or is there more space that could be preserved.
J. Alberti stated that they identified about 63,000sf for the potential building and there was about 64,200sf that could be preserved. He stated that he did not want to keep a portion that was not able to be bought up to standards.
P. Challenger stated that it seemed as though there would not be any left over space in the building for other functions; that the building would be solely a DPW Facility.
D. Nason replied that the charge of the Committee was to look at locations for the DPW Facility however based on the property it is something that they could look into and something they should look into and see if anything else fit into the space. He stated he did not know how much value it would be to have a building vacant and then to look to use it down the line but they could explore other options as well.
Chairman Renzoni asked if there was any potential to do infrastructure in place that would allow the Town to expand out to the back.
J. Alberti replied there was potential to do that.
Chairman Renzoni asked what other functions could fit there; he stated they should look about putting some money towards to infrastructure now to make something work down the line.
P. Challenger stated that they would clearly have addressed all the Haz Mat concerns as well and have a clean site so that if they wanted to expand in the future they could do so without any further environmental work.
Bill Randell, DPW Building Committee/Fin Com stated that he felt there was extra office space.
J. Alberti replied there was not a lot.
Sel. Ethier stated that a week from Monday was Town Meeting, May 15, 2017. He stated that the purpose of this meeting was to get the property not to discuss the DPW Building however he asked how much information the Boards could give people about the facility. He asked the Committee if they were prepared to do any sort of presentation on the cost of the new facility.
Chairman Renzoni stated that the Warrant Article was to authorize the Town Manager to accept this parcel of land as a gift to the Town. He stated that to be clear about the gift, there is risk and clean up associated with it and this meeting tonight was to better understand the clean up costs.
A Berg asked why the Committee decided to move forward with these as two separate projects; accepting of the land and the actual building. He stated it would make sense to go to Town Meeting with the project and do the presentation of both together so there was no question with timing.
Mr. Lukes stated that this land had 23 acres of land and there were several other interested parties in this land, whether to purchase portions of it outright, use it for other Town Department or other uses. He stated that when the DPW Project comes forward to Town Meeting he would like for it to come forward with a holistic approach to the property.
D. White stated that what they have is a timing issue. He stated the Committee needs to do more work on the design to determine what DPW needs in addition to making sure that everyone can be happy with the budget. He stated that it is a lot of work and the property owners want to move forward. He said it would be easy to say that it is not the Town’s problem that they now want to move forward but it is vacant and the Town does not want to miss the opportunity on this parcel. He stated the other thing was that it sounded as though they were putting the cart before the horse with discussion of the building and square footage. He stated they do need to get to the point with reasonable estimates and that may take until next fall or winter to determine how to move forward and with what costs. He stated that if the current program is too much it may have to be cut back and if it is cut back there may be available space for other department as well. He stated that all of that would be part of a discussion for a different day and the question they needed to answer was what was the risk to the Town to take ownership of 18 Industrial Drive now.
D. White stated that he thinks that the risks have gone down at this point and that the more information they get the less risk there is. He stated that because of the way the stars aligned they were not able to do the land acquisition and building together but the Town could be in a position to move forward with the land.
D. Nason stated that the Committee spoke about this a number of times and unfortunately they were not driving the bus on the timing of the property. He stated the property owner had a timeline in the agreement and that was just how it lined up.
D. White stated that A. Berg was right; it could come forward together but that just didn’t work this time.
D. Nason stated that there was risk for any property but the Committee did their due diligence and tried to wrap up and define any potential risks.
B. Randell stated that Berkshire Hathaway wanted to get rid of the property. He stated that they don’t care what the Town does with it or about Town Meeting; they just want it off their books. He stated it is a great investment for Town and it’s a great gift and he thinks that the Town should accept it.
P. Challenger asked why they accepted the building without requesting funds for clean up at the same time. He stated those two parts could certainly have gone together at Town Meeting.
J. Woodsmall stated that part of the remediation costs takes into consideration demolition.
Sel. Ethier left the meeting at 8:38PM.
J. Woodsmall stated that the interior boiler room could not be remediated with the building in place.
Chairman Renzoni asked when they planned on funding that additional cost. He asked what the strategy on that was and how much the Building Committee still had left from the previous allotment.
J. Woodsmall replied that they did have some money left over to advance the design of the building from last years allocation at Town Meeting. He stated that he does not believe that they have made a decision as to how to go forward in the process and that they would be having a conversation with Weston & Sampson about that.
Chairman Renzoni stated that they would have the opportunity for a Special Town Meeting.
P. Challenger stated that he thinks that some decisions should be made so that it is done in two phases and not to keep going back to the Town in many phases.
Sel. Ethier returned to the meeting at 8:40PM.
Chairman Renzoni asked how far they could get with the additional testing with the funds that they currently had.
J. Woodsmall replied he did not know the scope but there is a chunk to continue the process forward.
Sel. Ethier suggested that when they go to Town Meeting they should be prepared to answer questions about the facility and maybe provide some rough estimates without absolute numbers or details. He stated that they need to decide how they were going to handle that question at Town Meeting and be prepared to answer those questions from the public.
Dawn Michanowicz, DPW Building Committee stated that question was out of the scope of the Warrant Article. She stated that they should keep it general; the size, location, no cost to purchase the land, and reuse of existing building. She stated that was the broad answer and would help the public understand that this was the idea. She stated talking about any actual building was out of the scope of the Warrant Article.
Chairman Renzoni stated that they need to think this through. He stated that it is well within the people’s rights to ask questions and challenge the government on their decisions. He stated they need to be as specific as possible and if it is a bad answer then so be it but it will be the truth. He stated that he feels they need to be transparent and follow the “Mountview Model” to be successful.
Mr. Lukes stated that he appreciated the desire to tell the truth but they should not be talking about a plan that they do not have. He stated that they have a list of things that they wish for and it could overlay this parcel but there is no schematics and no actual architectural plans so there is no real plan. He stated there should be a holistic approach to use the property and once there is a project that is ready, they will present it to the public.
Chairman Renzoni stated that he did not disagree but that people who go to Town Meeting tend to pay attention to what is going on in Town. He stated that they were looking at it differently and the model that was discussed in November, at $25 Million was not the model that they were moving forward with.
D. White stated that he thinks that Chairman Renzoni referred to the process as the “Mountview Model”. He stated that was a successful process but it is a totally different project in the fact that Mountview had land so there could be extensive designs and testing done. He stated that in this case, they are saying they need land and then they can hone in on what is going to fit. He stated that he thinks that what the citizens need to know is from acquisition to the project there is a lot of conversation and discussion with people and professionals to come up with a project that everyone feels they can bring to Town Meeting and pass. He stated it is vastly different from Mountview and acquiring the land is the first step. He said get the land and then move the project forward.
D. Nason stated that the DPW Building Committee was originally charged with identifying a property and bringing it forward and then bringing a project forward. He stated that is where they are now. He stated they will answer the questions at Town Meeting as best they can but that there is no design or program to put forward at this time.
Sel. Ethier asked for a rough time frame for putting the project forward; 6 months one year.
D. Nason replied he was not sure and could not make any assumptions.
P. Challenger stated that at Town Meeting he wanted to emphasize that site, the challenge of a DPW Facility and how limited the options are. He stated that the “Not in My Backyard” and elevations in Town. He stated that there are real challenges as to where to locate a DPW Facility and this is centrally located site that fell into the Towns lap before the whole project was ready. He stated that there were not many sites like this site where the DPW would not bother neighbors. He stated that is what he would emphasize. P. Challenger stated that the DPW Committee knew all this information because they had lived through it but he would go through the details as to how the property was identified and how many properties were looked at and what they learned along the way so the public could see why this was the right location for the facility.
Chairman Renzoni stated that there were two other matters posted but that he did not believe they needed to discuss them at this time. He asked if Chairman White had anything else he wanted to talk about with the Board of Selectmen.
D. White stated that he did not think so. He stated that Fin Com needed to have a conversation amongst themselves but not with the involvement of the Board/ Committee.
Motion by Sel. Herlihy, seconded by Sel. Ethier, it was VOTED TO ADJOURN THE JOINT MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SELECTMEN/ FIN COM/ AND DPW BUILDING COMMITTEE ON MAY 4, 2017 AT 8:52PM BY A VOTE OF 3-0. (Herlihy: yes; Ethier: yes; Renzoni: yes; Kurtz: not present).
APPROVED: ____June 5, 2017 as amended____________