Town officials, public-safety leaders and the town’s financial adviser spent the bulk of a Jan. 21 meeting hashing out how to time and pay for a planned public safety facility at 48 Gardner Road and a series of public works and fire department equipment purchases.

The discussion, convened as a committee of the whole, focused on priorities, phasing and how to minimize immediate tax impacts on homeowners while meeting operational needs. David Eisenthal, vice president of Unibank Fiscal Advisory Services (UFASI), presented options including long-term general obligation borrowing, lease financing for equipment, staged note issues and a potential U.S. Department of Agriculture rural development loan for the facility.

Why it matters: The town is weighing about $8 million in potential capital needs for public safety, plus additional equipment items such as a replacement fire apparatus, a dump truck and a brush mower. Officials said choices about financing and the useful life assigned to equipment will affect whether borrowing becomes a debt-exclusion question that voters must approve.

Most of the meeting was a fact-finding session rather than a formal vote. Eisenthal said the town already carries roughly $3 million in outstanding short-term capital notes, including roughly $1.5 million tied to acquisition of 48 Gardner Road, roof repairs to the center school and $275,000 for prior fire equipment. He said the town could combine multiple capital purposes into a single municipal-purpose borrowing to capture economies of scale, or use leases for equipment that require only a majority vote at town meeting but usually carry higher interest and shorter terms.

Officials and department leaders pressed on timing and fit. Fire-department participants discussed two price points for a new tanker/pumper-type apparatus: a lower-cost commercial-chassis vehicle (shorter expected service life) and a custom-built apparatus that costs about $250,000 more but typically lasts 10 years longer. The cheaper option would fit the town’s existing station “as it sits now,” while a custom apparatus of the higher specification might require modifications to the station or could be housed at the intended new facility. Participants noted lead times: apparatus orders can take multiple years for design and delivery; construction of the new public safety building is likely several years out as well because of current lease obligations for tenants at 48 Gardner Road.

On equipment phasing, participants proposed: keep the brush mower purchase on the earlier fiscal schedule (FY27); consider the second fire truck in FY28; and a dump truck in FY29, recognizing market price increases and delivery lead times. Eisenthal recommended structuring borrowings so taxpayers face staggered impacts — e.g., pay for a truck only after delivery and then begin permanent financing — to avoid a single large tax spike.

Several speakers urged producing a 10-to-15-year financial timeline showing when each borrowing begins and ends, the estimated tax impact at each step, and how existing note payoffs free capacity in later years. Officials asked the town administrator to work with UFASI, the treasurer/collector and department heads to deliver cost estimates, assumed useful lives for equipment, and timing that can be shared publicly before any debt-exclusion votes.

What officials directed: The committee asked staff to prepare models showing estimated costs, useful-life assumptions for each major piece of equipment, realistic delivery timelines, and how existing debt payoffs would free capacity. The financial adviser agreed to examine USDA rural development financing options as part of the set of scenarios.

Noted constraints and risks: participants warned that leases can be faster politically because they require a majority town-meeting vote rather than a two-thirds vote for some debt exclusions, but leases typically cost more over time. Several people also cautioned that national or regional equipment price inflation and long manufacturer lead times can raise costs if purchases are repeatedly deferred.

Next steps: Officials agreed to reconvene after staff and the financial adviser deliver the requested financing and phasing scenarios, and to brief the public with a calendar showing when voters might see questions on the ballot.