Canton, Massachusetts · Saved source text
October 09, 2024, Finance Committee Meeting - Virtual Meeting. Minutes
Saved text from 10 source pages. Transcription and OCR may contain errors; verify figures and wording against the original. Retrieved 2026-10-15.
Source page 1
Canton Finance Committee Minutes Voted on: 5-0-2 801 Washington Street Vote: 10/15/24 Canton, MA 02021 Joint Meeting of the Finance Committee and Capital Planning Committee Meeting Minutes October 9, 2024 Virtual Meeting Finance Committee Members Present: Dave Clough, John Leonetti, Emilio Mauro, Maureen Menconi and Kristin Mirliani. Finance Committee Members absent: Dan Cole, Anne Lang, Reuki Schutt and Cindy Thomas. Guests Present: Ellen Jones, Recording Secretary Linda Liporto, LeftField Lisa Lopez, Capital Planning Committee Brian Lynch, Assistant Superintendent of Finance and Operations, Canton Public Schools Greg Murphy, Capital Planning Committee Peter Newton, Bristol Engineering Advisors, Inc. Bill O’Rourke, Consigli Construction Troy Randall, Ai3 Randy Scollins III, Finance Director Mike Trotta, Superintendent, Department of Public Works Call Meeting to Order: Mr. Mauro called the virtual meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Mr. Mauro introduced the Finance Committee members that were present as well as members of the Capital Planning Committee, the Assistant Superintendent from the School Department and members of the project team for the Galvin Project. New Business: Mr. Mauro reviewed the various Special Town Meeting (STM) articles that the Finance Committee would be discussing. Discussion — STM Article 2 - Galvin Middle School Construction Project Funding — Lisa Lopez Ms. Lopez, speaking on behalf of the Capital Planning Committee (CPC), provided a very thorough explanation of the Capital Planning Committee’s lengthy, hours-long meeting attended by six of the seven members of the CPC regarding the Galvin Middle School Construction Project Funding. Also in attendance at the CPC meeting was the School Superintendent and various members of the design and construction team. Ms. Lopez provided a copy of her notes regarding the CPC’s concerns about the project but ultimately the CPC’s recommendation of the project. (Ms. Lopez’ notes regarding the CPC’s comments and concerns regarding the Galvin Project are included as an attachment to these minutes.) The CPC voted 5-0-1 to recommend the $241 ,764,835 Galvin Middle School Project. Ms. Lopez made it clear that the CPC’s vote was to “preserve for the voters, on all sides of the issue, the right to make their case to their friends and neighbors and to have the votes taken at Town Meeting and the ballot box.” Mr. Murphy of the CPC mentioned another concern of the CPC was the need to turn this project around in 120 days. Another positive point was executing on this project would not force or create any other new projects, such as a project for the High School in order to keep up. The capital plan would allow for HVAC work, if needed, to be done at the High School. Because Ms. Lopez’ time at the Finance Committee was limited, Mr. Mauro asked Ms. Lopez to speak on the Filtration System with regard to the CPC’s recommendation. Discussion — STM within the STM Article 2 - Appropriation for Neponset Water Treatment Facilit Replacement Filtration System — Lisa Lopez Ms. Lopez stated that after a much shorter discussion by the CPC regarding the Filtration System project, the CPC voted 6-0 (with one member of the CPC not in attendance at the CPC meeting) to recommend the Water Treatment FINCOM 20241009 Minutes EM Clough FINAL.docx Page 1 of 8 10/13/24
Source page 2
Replacement Filtration System. The $4,200,000 project would replace the current ultra-filtration system used at the Neponset Water Treatment Facility with a granular media filtration system used at the Pecunit Water Treatment Facility. (Ms. Lopez’ notes regarding the CPC’s comments and concerns regarding the Water Treatment Facility are included as an attachment to these minutes.) Mr. Murphy did not have anything to add to Ms. Lopez’ explanation of the project. Mr. Mauro thanked all the members of the CPC for all of the work they did in such a short timeline to get their recommendations to the Finance Committee. Mr. Mauro suggested that Mr. Lynch and representatives of Ai3 and LeftField provide their responses to the comments of the CPC presented by Ms. Lopez. Mr. Lynch thanked the Capital Planning Committee for all of their support. Mr. Lynch addressed all of the CPC’s items of concern regarding the Galvin Project as follows: Cost of the Galvin Project as being the most expensive project in comparison to other projects in the Commonwealth: On his own, Mr. Lynch looked at the Norwood Middle School Project. Mr. Scollins projected on the screen copies of the project/scope memos regarding the MSBA’s recommendations to the MSBA Board, specifically the reimbursement rate for Norwood (2/18/22) as compared to the reimbursement rate for Canton (at the same stage at the end of August 2024). Mr. Lynch stated that he is a former MSBA employee who worked on the MSBA program team but by no means is a professional construction employee. Mr. Lynch was a liaison between the MSBA and the school district. For the Norwood project: Maximum Total Facilities Grant: $46,259,251 + $150,258,844 = 30.83% Effective Total Reimbursement Rate for Norwood. Total Reimbursement Rate: 54.34%. For the Canton project (30 months after Norwood secured the funding for their project): Maximum Total Facilities Grant: $74,357,676 +$241,746,835 = 30.76% Effective Total Reimbursement Rate for Canton. Total Reimbursement Rate: 52.88%. Included in Canton’s Scope of the project is the building. Excluded from the reimbursement is the Auditorium, the turf field, the size of the gymnasium and some contingency money included in the total project budget bottom line. Mr. Lynch believes the only item included in Norwood’s Scope was for an increased auditorium. Mr. Lynch would not be surprised if the next project in the state following Canton’s project would exceed Canton’s total project cost due to construction inflationary costs. Mr. Clough inquired about the reimbursement rate of 47.21% which is included in the motion for the STM Article. The reimbursement rate of 47.21% is before incentive points are applied. Incentive Points for Canton’s project include the following: 1.67% for maintenance, 3.00% for Energy Efficiency/Green Schools and 1.00% for Indoor Air Quality/Green Schools. 52.88%-1.67-3.00-1.00 = 47.21%. MSBA does not award incentive bonus points until the project has reached certain milestones. The language for the Warrant Article Motion is provided by the MSBA and is part of their requirement that only the base % be included because it is a contingency at this point in the process. Mr. Clough inquired about the square footage price of the Norwood project in comparison to the Canton project. The Norwood project listed the actual square footage cost of the project at $636/sq.ft. or $360/sq.ft. which is the MSBA’s cap of reimbursement amounts. Mr. Lynch is uncertain but believes MSBA changed their Board memo to not include the cap % for the Canton Project. Canton project’s actual square footage cost is at $895/sq.ft. Ms. Liporto from LeftField confirmed that the $895/sq.ft. includes the cost of the auditorium and all other items that were voted in as additional scope. The $195,000,000 is all inclusive of all of the construction costs. Ms. Liporto stated that the MSBA’s cap for the Canton project is $550/sq. ft. Ms. Liporto addressed Mr. Leonetti’s concern about construction cost trends. From 2005 to 2020 the 15-year average escalation was 3.24%. After 2020 the first two increases from 2020 to 2021 was 14% and from 2021 to 2022 was 14%. An additional increase from 2022 to 2023 was 15%. The estimated increase from 2023 to 2024 has leveled out to an increase of 6%. Troy Randall of Ai3 Architects spoke about peer projects. He stated that Canton’s project is not the most expensive project in the Commonwealth as compared to the peer projects within the same timeframe. Mr. Scollins projected on the Zoom screen an MSBA chart (New Construction Costs Compared to Common Economic Indicators) tracking all of the MSBA projects from 2009 through 2026. There are other projects included in the range with Canton that are very close to each other with regard to the cost per square footage. Mr. Randall hopes that the tagline (the most expensive project in the Commonwealth) for anyone that is either for or against the project is not used because it is not a true statement. FINCOM 20241009 Minutes EM Clough FINAL.docx Page 2 of 8 10/13/24
Source page 3
e Mr. Lynch reviewed the procurement of the project and spoke generally about the procurement options for a community. The first procurement is for an Owner's Project Manager (OPM) which is a very regulated process with the District working closely with the MSBA to ensure the District is proceeding in the correct way to set the project up for success in the future. The MSBA provides training on producing a Request for Services (RFS) and reviews the narrative of the process, the responses that are received and the selection of the OPM with the District (after going before the OPM review panel) is finalized and a contract with the OPM is executed. A Designer is then selected to add to the Team. With regard to the Design Procurement, the District has three member seats on the 20-member Designer Selection Panel. The District, with the assistance of the OPM issues an RFS for designers, submissions are received, reviewed/ranked and are scored after the designers have given a presentation to the Panel through a lengthy process. The OPM and the Designer work together as a team to proceed with the project to the point at which Canton is at for the present time. The District then has to make a decision on whether to go with Design-Bid-Build or a Construction Manager at Risk (CMR) project. Through a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) process Canton elected to go with Consigli as the CMR. The OPM is involved with the selection of the CMR to make sure the procurement is done properly (through the Building Sub-Committee of the School Committee). Technical responses are evaluated to the RFQ with a score and then the financial component is a piece of the qualifications process. The highest scoring firm is awarded the contract. e Ms. Liporto added to the conversation that choosing the CMR early on in the Schematic design process helps to give more input on the final costs from a construction manager standpoint versus the estimators from the sub-consultant on the Team. It also helps with the logistics of the project in general. The sub-committee always has members from the District and School Committee and also always has to have one member from the OPM Team and one member from the Design Team. She further stated that the OPM and the Designer have very little input on the selection process of the CMR. e The selection of a CMR is not based on the lowest bid process. Mr. Scollins showed on the Zoom screen the CMR Proposal Interview and Price Ranking exhibit. The price is only 25% of the ranking to insure that the technical and merits and ability and qualifications of the company are taken into account versus the low bid. e Mr. Clough spoke about a public records request he made with regard to the exhibit that Mr. Scollins showed on the Zoom screen. Mr. Clough also asked under his public records request for all of the reviewers notes. He also noted that on the Galvin Project website the procurement did not list out all of the evaluation criteria detailed on the exhibit which identifies the weights of 25% for technical, 50% for the interview and 25% for the price. Mr. Clough asked why the most weight was given to the interview and not the technical or price evaluation criteria. Mr. Mauro’s response was that there is a practice/policy to keep these reviews anonymous and the notes confidential. Ms. Liporto agreed with Mr. Mauro that that is the point of the deliberations. e Ms. Liporto further explained the interviews are posted public meetings, however the reason names are not placed on the rankings sheet is for privacy purposes. The outcome of the discussions/interviews is the ranking. The percentages for technical proposals and interviews are specifically shown in the RFPs where there are several listings that state the requests that qualify exactly what the Team is looking for in the responses. Per bidding laws if they are qualified and there are no red flags the Team has to invite all qualified firms to submit a price proposal and a technical proposal. The District cannot disqualify an applicant based on their own opinions. If the applicants are qualified based on the specific criteria listed in the RFQ they are invited to submit proposals. All submitted proposals are all firms submitting proposals are required to have an interview position. At no point can a reviewer say that they do not want a firm. It is intended to take all of the personal opinions out of the review process. The MSBA oversees the whole process. The highest ranked then proceeds with negotiations for a contract. As per Ch. 149A the Project Team will have to bid out the project for the CMR. Mr. Lynch further addressed issues of the CPC. Part of the MSBA process requires regular School Committee meetings, School Building Committee meetings and public engagement and review of options. Ms. Mirliani stated that she was concerned about the limited number of participants involved in the process, however, she clarified that the project has “been in the works” for a very, very long time. At the beginning of her School Committee tenure which was approximately nine years ago the conversation started about moving the 5 grade out of the elementary schools for which there were many forums. Although it may seem that this project is happening now and seems fast, it has been going on for many years and Ms. Mirliani is pleased that the project has proceeded to this point. In response to comments from the public that the Town is being “forced” into this decision now, the District needs to decide if they will support this project within the 120 day timeframe to secure local funding. If Canton does not meet the funding requirement MSBA will remove them from the process and Canton would be forced to start all over again. FINCOM 20241009 Minutes EM Clough FINAL.docx Page 3 of 8 10/13/24
Source page 4
In response to Mr. Clough’s question about reducing the amount of the project on Town Meeting floor due to the high price tag of the project and if there could be a change in the Scope of the project such as removing the Auditorium, Mr. Lynch responded that changing the Scope of the project is not what the MSBA approved and more than likely Canton would be asked by the MSBA to move out of the pipeline of projects. Mr. Randall confirmed that it would definitely be a change in Scope of the project and would negate the budget agreement between the MSBA and Canton and would have to return to the process at the very beginning. Ms. Mirliani commented that if the Auditorium were removed from the Scope of the project and the Town had to start all over again with the process, essentially the Town would be getting less of a project with more of a cost because of an increased project cost due to inflationary costs in the future. Ms. Liporto recommended to Mr. Leonetti that he could access a Yale study on the Galvin Project website with regard to a 7% increase to residential properties valuation resulting from a school project. Mr. Scollins stated that 60% is a conservative number for $4.5 billion of residential values. Mr. Leonetti stated that a 5% increase would equate to a $220 million aggregate increase in residential values, a 6% increase would equate to a $273 million aggregate increase in residential values and a 7% increase would equate to a $323 million aggregate increase in residential values. Mr. Leonetti’s point is the aggregate increase to residential values would exceed the cost of the project at $241 million. Mr. Leonetti stated that while the project might not pay for itself there is a net benefit to each residential property owner that they could anticipate an increase in their property value which might help the voters to make a decision. Mr. Jeffrey Sullivan, Canton resident, asked for further clarification on the difference between the cost of the Norwood Project and the Canton Project. Mr. Lynch responded that he was not familiar with the Scope for the Norwood Project but that the Effective Reimbursement Rates between Norwood and Canton are essentially within one-tenth of a percent of each other and that the difference in cost of the projects is most likely due to an inflation factor. Vote — STM Article 2 - Galvin Middle School Construction Project Cost Mr. Mauro explained that the motion for Article 2 was a motion provided by the MSBA and has been reviewed by Bond Counsel. A motion made by Ms. Mirliani that the Town of Canton appropriate the amount of Two Hundred and Forty One Million Seven Hundred and Sixty Four Thousand Eight Hundred and Thirty Five ($241,764,835) Dollars for the purpose of paying costs of the construction of a new William H. Galvin Middle School located at 55 Pecunit Street, Canton, MA 02021 with an agreed upon design enrollment of 1,020 students in grades 5- 8, including the payment of all costs incidental or related thereto (the “Project”), which school facility shall have an anticipated useful life as an educational facility for the instruction of school children for at least 50 years, and for which the Town of Canton may be eligible for a grant from the Massachusetts School Building Authority (“MSBA”), said amount to be expended under the direction of the Canton School Building Committee. To meet this appropriation the Town Treasurer, with the approval of the Select Board, is authorized to borrow said amount under M.G.L. Chapter 44, or pursuant to any other enabling authority. The Town of Canton acknowledges that the MSBA’s grant program is a non- entitlement, discretionary program based on need, as determined by the MSBA, and any project costs the Town of Canton incurs in excess of any grant approved by and received from the MSBA shall be the sole responsibility of the Town of Canton; provided further that any grant that Town of Canton may receive from the MSBA for the Project shall not exceed the lesser of (1) 47.21 percent (%) of eligible, approved project costs, as determined by the MSBA, or (2) the total maximum grant amount determined by the MSBA; provided that any appropriation hereunder shall be subject to and contingent upon an affirmative vote of the Town to exempt the amounts required for the payment of interest and principal on said borrowing from the limitations on taxes imposed by M.G.L. 59, Section 21C (Proposition 2%); and that the amount of borrowing authorized pursuant to this vote shall be reduced by any grant amount set forth in the Project Funding Agreement that may be executed between the Town of Canton and the MSBA was seconded by Ms. Menconi. Mr. Scollins explained to Mr. Leonetti that the motion would not include interest rates as the bonds would be sold in a transparent open market and the Town would not know what those interest rates are until the time of the bond offering. The Galvin Project Funding documents presented by Mr. Scollins at a prior Finance Committee joint meeting with the CPC assumed a 4% interest rate. The last bond offering in May 2024 was 3.6% when rates were at their highest prior to the Feds reducing interest rates. In response to Mr. Leonetti’s question if Mr. Scollins would be presenting information to the voters or at STM, Mr. Scollins stated that the Finance Committee has the purview to include at their discretion information in the STM recommendations but that he would be pleased to present information if asked to by the School Superintendent and School Building Committee. Mr. Clough inquired about any escalation costs built into the project. Ms. Liporto responded that while she did not have the 42-page estimate in front of her she believes the consensus between the three estimators at the time of putting the budget together was to stay at 10% escalation costs (escalating it out to starting construction in 2026 and finishing in 2030). There are also construction contingencies, design contingencies and overall project contingencies. Ms. Liporto states that if the project does go over the 10% escalation cost that value engineering would be introduced to the project to change the scope of materials. Ms. Liporto stated the town will not incur any additional charges on top of the $241,764,835 price tag. Roll Call Vote: Maureen Menconi Aye Kristin Mirliani Aye John Leonetti Aye EmilioMauro Aye Dave Clough Abstained Vote: 4-0-1. Mr. Clough abstained from the vote. Mr. Scollins pointed out a clarification in the Finance Committee By-Laws that specifically states with regards to these Town Meeting votes is that the votes to be shown in the document that is sent to the voters must be either Yay votes FINCOM 20241009 Minutes EM Clough FINAL.docx Page 4 of 8 10/13/24
Source page 5
or Nay votes and no abstentions. The Finance Committee Secretary brought this by-law to the attention of Mr. Scollins earlier in the day. Mr. Mauro inquired if the 4-0 vote would make it look like there was no quorum for the vote. Mr. Mauro suggested that this may be something for the By-Law Modernization Committee to consider for the future. Mr. Mauro thanked Mr. Lynch and all of the members of the Project Team, Ms. Liporto and Mr. Randall, the School Committee, the School Building Committee, School Department and all of the construction professionals for their time in putting this project together and for spending their time with the Finance Committee and Capital Planning Committee in order for the Committees to deliberate on the project. At approximately 8:52 p.m. Mr. Clough left the Finance Committee meeting. Discussion — STM within the STM Article 2— Appropriation for Neponset Water Treatment Facility Replacement Mr. Trotta, DPW Superintendent, stated that the Edward Sullivan Water Treatment Plant on Neponset Street has been on-line since 2010. At that time the Town made a decision based on a consultant's recommendation to use an ultra- filtration membrane filtering system for the best way to filter the water based on its chemistry. The DPW has struggled with this sophisticated type of filtration system from the start. In the 10 years that the facility has been running, the system had to be shut down many times due to maintenance. The SCADA system and software are many years old and is in need of an upgrade. Mr. Peter Newton of Bristol Engineering Advisors stated that the plant has never really operated more than 60-70% of its design capacity for the past 6-7 years. Because the facility cannot treat all of the ground water that it is able to produce the Town has had to purchase water from MWRA. The SCADA system was not operating properly because it was receiving bad signals from the system. A valve specialist inspected more than 60 valves used to run the system and it was found that more than half of them were failing from either leaking past the valves or not closing properly, not opening properly or were stuck completely. These malfunctioning valves were providing SCADA with inaccurate data. Because the hardware was not operating properly it was feeding incorrect information to the software. After many discussions among Mr. Trotta, Mr. Newton and many consultants in the field it came down to the decision that the granular medial pressure system is more appropriate. It will treat the water with less operational headaches and expense. Mr. Trotta estimates that the design, the bidding, the construction and overseeing of the project will be $4.2 million. The Town will also have to take the existing plant off line. While the plant is off line the Town will have to purchase water from MWRA at an estimated cost of $2-2.5 million. These costs will impact the water rates. Staff has been discussing the rates now and will present to the Select Board in October to present the rate plan for the next several years with the impact built into the rates for FY27 into FY28 which will be calendar year July 27 into 2028. There will be an 18-month lag to the impact. Once online the expectation is that the plant will be producing 1.0 to 1.1 million gallons per day as compared to the current production of 670,000 gallons. This will be a savings due to a reduction in the purchasing of MWRA water. Construction will start in the fall of 2025 and by the spring of 2026 the plant should be coming on line by the summer of 2026 running at maximum production, with a reduction in MWRA purchase of water. Original estimation of the carbon vessels at $400,000 per vessel came in higher at over $1.2 million per vessel. The present system came on-line in 2013 and is at the end of its useful life. The Pecunit system came online in 2010. The new vessels for the Neponset Street Facility are expected to last for 20+ years. The warranty on the system that is failing came with a 1-year warranty. Mr. Leonetti questioned if the Town had gone back to the installer to ask questions about what was represented at the time and what happened since. The language in the Bristol Engineering letter that references “had the full picture of the effort involved in keeping a UF system operational been provided to the Town in the planning stages, it is possible that a different treatment process would have been made” sounds like information may have been withheld and now 10-11 years later the Town is considering spending $4.2 million on a new system with a $2.5 MWRA water purchase as well. Mr. Newton stated the letter neglected to state that many communities were purchasing these state-of-the art membrane systems and engineering firms were all pushing these systems and that the systems turned out to be a lot harder to maintain than anyone had thought they would be. Vote — STM within the STM Article 2 - Appropriation for Neponset Water Treatment Facility Replacement Mr. Mauro stated that it appeared the Finance Committee no longer had a quorum of five members for the meeting. Mr. Mauro thanked Mr. Trotta and Mr. Newton for attending the meeting. He suggested posting a link for the Zoom meeting, so other members can review the meeting and that a vote could be taken at the next meeting on October 15, 2024. He also suggested that STM Article 1 (Adopt the Rules to Govern Special Town Meeting) be voted October 15, 2024. Mr. Scollins stated the October 16 target deadline to have everything concluded, so that we could send everything, including motions to Town Counsel for his review and then send the document to the printer by October 21. Mr. Scollins asked the Finance Committee Secretary why a member dropped off of the meeting. Ms. Jones responded that she did not know why a member left the meeting and was not provided with information beforehand that there was a conflict for the member. FINCOM 20241009 Minutes EM Clough FINAL.docx Page 5 of 8 10/13/24
Source page 6
Ms. Mirliani stated that she had just sent Mr. Clough an email who thought the meeting was over. At approximately 9:20 p.m. Mr. Clough rejoined the Finance Committee meeting. Mr. Clough apologized. A motion made by Ms. Mirliani that $4,200,000 be appropriated to be spent by the Finance Director (in his capacity as Chief Procurement Officer) with the approval of the Department of Public Works Superintendent and the Select Board for the purpose of the replacement of the ultrafiltration membrane racks at the Neponset Water Treatment Plant with a granular media pressure system and to meet said appropriation the Town Treasurer with the approval of the Select Board be authorized to borrow pursuant to any applicable statute or any other enabling authority as may be, the sum of $4,200,000. It is the intent that the said bonds and notes issued pursuant to this authority be general obligations of the Town but are to be repaid in the first instance from water revenues was seconded by Mr. Clough. Roll Call Vote: Maureen Menconi Aye Kristin Mirliani Aye John Leonetti Aye EmilioMauro Aye Dave Clough Aye Vote: 5-0. The motion for STM within the STM Article 2 was recommended by the Finance Committee. Vote — STM Article 1 Motion 1 — Adopt The Rules to Govern Special Town Meeting A motion made by Ms. Mirliani that this 2024 Special Town Meeting shall meet on Monday, November 18, 2024, to begin at 7:00 o’clock P.M. and if necessary on Wednesday, November 20, 2024, to begin at 7:00 o’clock P.M. and if necessary the Monday and Wednesdays thereafter at 7:00 o’clock P.M. in the Morse Auditorium, on the grounds of the Canton High School until the business of this Special Town Meeting has been concluded, and to adjourn at 11:00 o’clock P.M., or as near that hour as may be feasible, according to the nature of the business pending at the said hour was seconded by Mr. Clough. Roll Call Vote: Maureen Menconi Aye Kristin Mirliani Aye John Leonetti Aye EmilioMauro Aye Dave Clough Aye Vote: 5-0. The motion for STM Article 1 Motion 1 was recommended by the Finance Committee. Vote — STM Article 1 Motion 2 — Adopt The Rules to Govern Special Town Meeting MOTION 2 A motion made by Ms. Mirliani that the following individuals be granted all of the rights and privileges of participation in this Special Town Meeting, except the right to vote, under any article of this warrant which affects matters within their jurisdiction: Alyssa Chantani, Project Manager, LeftField Steve Choiniere, Supervisor of Facilities and Grounds Paul R. DeRensis, Town Counsel, Brooks & DeRensis Jeremiah Driscoll, Project Manager, Consigli Construction Timothy Ericson, Consigli Construction Co., Inc. Paul Feeney, State Senator Derek Folan, Superintendent of Schools Louis Jutras, Information Systems Manager Arafat Knight, Veterans’ Agent Karen Lawlor, Administrative Assistant, Canton Planning Board Alfons Koka, Town Engineer Linda Liporto, Director of Interiors, LeftField Brian M. Lynch, Assistant Superintendent of Finance and Operations, School Brian Lynch, Director of Facilities and Grounds/Maintenance Stephen Lynch, Representative in Congress M. Regen Milani, Conservation Commission Agent Kristy Lyons, Consigli Construction Co., Inc. Jonathan Mulhern, Principal, William H. Galvin Middle School William O’Rourke, Project Executive, Consigli Construction Co., Inc. Jonathan Quell, Associate, Project Manager, Ai3 Tyler Radicioni, Parks & Recreation Director Helena Rafferty, Police Chief Barbara Reardon, Board of Health Director E. Wendell Robery, Fire Chief William Scollins, Finance Director Patricia Sherrill, Deputy Police Chief Justin Thibeault, Principal, Project Architect, Ai3 Taylor Torres, Town Planner Michael Trotta, Superintendent of Public Works Diane Tynan, Director of the Department of Elder & Human Services was seconded by Mr. Clough. FINCOM 20241009 Minutes EM Clough FINAL.docx Page 6 of 8 10/13/24
Source page 7
Roll Call Vote: Maureen Menconi Aye Kristin Mirliani Aye John Leonetti Aye EmilioMauro Aye Dave Clough Aye Vote: 5-0. The motion for STM Article 1 Motion 2 was recommended by the Finance Committee. Mr. Mauro suggested to Mr. Murphy (CPC) that the CPC discussions for the Galvin Project and the Water Treatment Facility should be sent to Mr. Mauro, Ms. Jones and Mr. Scollins. Approval of Minutes The minutes for September 25, 2024 and October 7, 2024 were not ready for approval. Next Meeting Date Mr. Mauro announced that the next Finance Committee meeting would take place virtually on Tuesday, October 15, 2024, at which time the Planning Board would make their recommendations regarding the Zoning articles. Adjournment A motion made by Ms. Mirliani to adjourn the meeting at approximately 9:30 p.m. was seconded by Ms. Menconi. Roll Call Vote: Maureen Menconi Aye Dave Clough Aye Emilio Mauro Aye John Leonetti Aye Kristin Mirliani Aye Vote: 5-0. Minutes reviewed by: Dave Clough Respectfully submitted, . Emilio E. Mauro, Jr. Chair, Canton Finance Committee FINCOM 20241009 Minutes EM Clough FINAL.docx Page 7 of 8 10/13/24
Source page 8
Finance Committee Meeting Documents October 9, 2024 Please note: Some meeting documents may be found on the Town’s website under the Posted Minutes section (Laser Fiche). Agenda — October 9, 2024. STM Article 1, Draft Motion - Adopt Rules to Govern Special Town Meeting (2 pages). Comments from Lisa Lopez regarding the Galvin Middle School Project and the Neponset Water Treatment Facility, dated 10/9/24 (2 pages). Letter from Peter Newton of Bristol Engineering Advisors, Inc., dated February 26, 2024 (2 pages). Capital Project — Form B — Fiscal 2026 — Process Modification at the Sullivan Water Treatment Faclity, Neponset Street (1 page). MSBA Vote Language — Galvin Middle School Project — Provided by Locke Lord LLP, dated 8/21/24 (2 pages). FINCOM 20241009 Minutes EM Clough FINAL.docx Page 8 of 8 10/13/24
Source page 9
GALVIN MIDDLE SCHOOL After a very lengthy discussion, CPC voted to recommend approval of middle school project 5 votes yes, to 1 abstention. 1 member was absent. School superintendent and various members of design and construction team in attendance, and answered a few questions. Notwithstanding the vote to recommend approval by Fin Com, most of the committee voiced significant concerns, feel obliged to share: - Comparing this project to other projects, middle school and high school available on MSBA website, new Galvin looks like it would be highest price project in the commonwealth. - Worry that community members who participated engagement process that resulted in the design choices may not have fully appreciated the total cost of those choices - Concerned that total cost of the project was not signaled to the public in general — and to our committee in particular — early enough to be able to fully absorb and respond in a way that could have affected process - Uncomfortable with state process that gives our community no choice other than to take action on only one choice within prescribed time or go back to square one and the back of the line in terms of acceptance into the MSBA program. We acknowledge however that the District has no control over the limitations and constraints of that process. All this said, we feel the town (specifically the School Committee, Finance Director as guided by many experienced experts and consultants) diligently followed the process required by the Commonwealth; taking 18 months to consider public input, design alternatives, and value engineer the choices to accomplish the mission of providing the best educational experience for students consistent with the District’s stated educational mission. Second. Time is not on our side generally with respect to cost; if the project is not funded now, but some time in the future, even if de scoped, costs may increase, and increase considerably. Third. We were encouraged by Finance Director’s assurance that town’s excellent credit rating will not be weakened and that we have adequate borrowing capacity, and even additional capacity within the annual tax levy to fund this project without compromising the town’s ability to fund other anticipated capital projects including specifically what may happen with former St Gerard’s site. Fourth. Superintendent’s assurances that moving 5"" grade to middle school will free up critical space needs in the three elementary schools. And anticipated elementary school capital needs, fola24
Source page 10
including HVAC system upgrade at the Luce , are on the School Committee radar and can be accommodated. The remaining million dollar question is whether the tax payers support the critical assumption that this design is what the community wants, such that they are willing to make this personal investment in our community. Our vote was not intended to be a proxy for that. Indeed, we wanted to preserve for voters — on all sides of this issue — the right to make their case to their friends and neighbors and to have the votes taken at Town Meeting and the ballot box. NEPONSET WATER TREATMENT FACILITY After a much shorter discussion on the replacement of the current ultra filtration system used by the Neponsit water treatment facility with a granular media filtration system, the committee voted 6 in favor. 1 member of the committee was absent. Our thinking: We are not experts. We credited the consultant’s report that the current system design at Neponsit Water Treatment Facility has not been performing as anticipated when installed 10 years ago, resulting in significant cost to the town due to repair and maintenance while the system is down, and very significant cost to purchase more expensive MWRA water to replace the water that was not being treated by the Neponsit facility. We also credited the consultant’s recommendation that the best way forward is to eliminate the more sophisticated system deployed by the Neponset facility, and replace it with the less sophisticated but through our own experience, reliable and perfectly satisfactory system deployed at the town’s other water treatment facility —- the Pecunit facility. Simply put, we thought we were getting a state of the art filtration system 10 years ago. Turns out that state of the art meant that it had the service and maintenance requirements of a jaguar instead of a more reliable chevy. We were comforted that the return on the investment at 4 years, is relatively short. We were also influenced by the knowledge that the capital expense will be incurred by the water and sewer enterprise account. Randy is the better person to explain how, when netting this capital expense with the savings from the avoidance of expensive purchases of MWRA water, water rates would likely be impacted. je [yay