Select Board and finance committee remain divided over proposed Acton DPW facility

The Acton Select Board spent substantial time discussing the proposed Department of Public Works facility, including whether to proceed with a debt-exclusion vote this spring or delay for further study.

The Select Board and project staff described a consolidated facility design developed through a feasibility study and later reduced in cost by roughly $4 million. Select Board member Dean said the feasibility work had already evaluated alternative approaches and supported the consolidated plan as the most cost-effective solution. "The feasibility study did the analysis" he said, adding that renovating the existing facility or splitting functions into separate buildings would not be cheaper in the long run.

Why it matters: the DPW building is one of the largest capital requests before voters, will be funded by borrowing subject to a Proposition 2½ debt-exclusion ballot question if the board puts it forward, and directly affects municipal operations, staff safety and long-term maintenance costs.

Board members and staff described efforts to pare costs and seek grant and incentive funding. Select Board member David said the design team had cut about $4 million from earlier estimates and noted that waiting longer raises the risk of higher construction prices. "The one thing we know is going to happen is the cost of the project will go up by 20% regardless of who's in the White House," he said, adding that delaying would likely increase the total cost and require redoing site planning and design work.

Finance Committee members who reviewed the project voiced opposition or skepticism at a joint meeting, prompting Select Board members to describe that meeting as unproductive. Select Board members said they had reduced the project size and scope in response to prior concerns and that remaining cuts would risk undermining the building's functionality. "We've cut this building so much that we can't make any more cuts to the building," Dean said.

Staff described practical consequences if voters do not approve the borrowing. Town project staff said design money already spent would leave the town with design documents and estimates but without construction funding; completing a substantially different scheme later would require additional design funds and another round of community review.

Board members debated timing. Some argued for moving forward now so voters see a full proposal and costs at the ballot; others said additional outreach and education could improve the proposal's chances. Select Board member Jim said he preferred to take the vote now and hear voters' views rather than delay. Select Board member Alyssa and others discussed whether extra time would improve public understanding, but several board members said they did not expect a meaningful change in external conditions by postponing.

The Select Board did not take a final vote on the project at this meeting. Officials said the next steps remain to present the proposal at Town Meeting and the associated ballot question if the board approves the debt exclusion. Staff emphasized that if the board delays, design work already completed will remain an expense and the town would need to return to the design phase to alter scope or build separate structures.

Community response at the joint meeting with the Finance Committee was mixed. Board members said some residents remain unconvinced about the building's scope; that debate is expected to continue through the warrant, the ballot process for the debt-exclusion question and Town Meeting.