Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Building Commissioner topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hubbardston board conditionally advances contract with building-commissioning firm after lengthy debate
Summary
After reviewing three candidates for the part-time building commissioner role, the Select Board voted to move forward with Robert 'Bob' Garside’s proposal contingent on legal review and due diligence about procurement and contracting; staff were asked to check references and confirm compliance with Chapter 30B.
The Hubbardston Select Board on Jan. 12 debated three candidates to fill the town’s part-time building commissioner role and conditionally approved moving forward with a contract model proposed by Robert 'Bob' Garside.
Board members described three finalists: Duffy (a long-time local inspector), Robert Garside (an LLC operator proposing to provide an on‑call team and perform inspections for an hourly fee), and Vincenzo ('Vinny'), who currently serves as building commissioner in Blackstone. Each candidate’s availability, fee structure, and compatibility with the town’s permitting software were discussed at length.
Speakers flagged several concerns about the incumbent system, which one board member summarized as: “The system that we have does not function, does not work. It is very problematic, and he doesn't wanna touch it with a 20 foot pole.” That complaint—raised while recounting Duffy’s reasons for preferring not to continue under the town’s current permit workflow—helped frame discussions about whether to invest in software changes or pursue a contractor-based model.
Garside described a firm model in which he would initially serve as the building commissioner and later delegate inspections to inspectors on his team. Board members said referees in Salisbury and Pepperell gave Garside strong references. Garside proposed a rate that board members discussed as roughly $50 an hour for 19 weekly hours (the town’s advertised hours), though exact procurement and contract arrangements would be clarified during due diligence.
A motion to proceed with Garside to fulfill Hubbardston’s building commissioner responsibilities was made and seconded, with the motion conditioned on legal review and due diligence to ensure compliance with procurement rules (Chapter 30B) and proper appointment of any inspectors who would work under him. Staff were instructed to contact towns Garside already serves, confirm how they procured his services, and consult town counsel on contracting and appointment processes.
The board’s conditional approval means staff will return at the next meeting with findings on procurement, legal compliance and reference checks before a final appointment or contract is executed.
