In addition to the financial approvals, the meeting included a detailed examination of the Department of Public Works (DPW) building project. Members and the Municipal Facilities Committee (MFC) explored whether to renovate the existing structure, replace it with a custom building, or opt for a modular design. The renovation was estimated at nearly $10 million, while a new custom building, providing more space, would cost approximately $14.2 million. The modular option, slightly under $14 million, offers similar functionality with potential cost and time savings. The discussion on square footage costs revealed the renovation would be more expensive per square foot than the modular building. Emphasis was placed on reviewing operational needs and the proposed increase in square footage.

A proposed design aims to improve site circulation by relocating the fuel island to optimize traffic flow. The board discussed the relocation and redesign of the fuel tank, highlighting the need for regulatory testing linked to potential soil contamination. The new design would replace an office trailer with a comprehensive structure that integrates all DPW functions. There was acknowledgment of the challenges presented by nearby wetlands, requiring careful site optimization.

The board also focused on a conservation restriction grant for a property on Prospect Street, allowing public access with the landowner’s permission but limiting it to special events and educational programs. The Sudbury Valley Trustees (SVT) confirmed that public trails are not planned, respecting the landowner’s privacy. The board unanimously approved the conservation restriction, recognizing the collaborative efforts of the conservation commission and advisory committee. Despite the approval, the board acknowledged the need for an additional municipal facilities committee member to complete the renovation committee’s roster.

Further discussions involved potential additional funding sources for a groundwater study, with suggestions to explore creative financing options. The formation of a building committee was proposed to oversee the project, involving members from the board of health and conservation commission. This committee would address questions and concerns early on, minimizing the select board’s direct involvement in project details.

The meeting also addressed personnel policies, focusing on paid parental leave for non-union employees. The policy aims to address a benefits gap compared to teachers who already receive paid parental leave. The lack of this benefit is seen as a recruitment and retention challenge, with discussions on whether to maintain a distinction between primary and secondary caregivers. Some members advocated for equal access to leave for both parents, while others raised concerns about potential financial implications and service delivery impacts during extended leaves.

Lastly, the board discussed committee appointment policies, considering residency requirements and the participation of non-residents. The conversation highlighted the necessity of clear language to prevent misunderstandings and ensure proper vetting of committee members. The board also considered the potential involvement of residents under 18 in non-voting capacities, recognizing the importance of civic engagement while maintaining fair representation and accountability.