#01720 #Acton #ActonDPW #ActonMA #ActonMA01720
The Acton Select Board has given Actonians few compelling reasons to support the DPW project and MANY to oppose it. Borrowing a page out of David Letterman’s playbook, we count down from 10 to 1!
10. FINCOM SAYS NO! Acton’s Finance Committee is unanimously opposed to the PROPOSED DPW building project and has been from the very beginning. If the Select Board has been unable to convince even the Finance Committee, then why should Acton voters be convinced? Acton voters should NOT be convinced. VOTE NO ON ACTON’S DPW DEBACLE! (See references A, B, & C.)
9. BAD FOR THE ENVIRONMENT! The PROPOSED DPW project excludes a wash bay (a car wash for large vehicles), which was supposed to protect the environment from salt and chemical runoff. VOTE NO ON ACTON’S DPW DEBACLE! (See reference F.)
8. NO GYM FOR BLUE-COLLAR WORKERS! The PROPOSED DPW project building is too small for current/future personnel and does not include a gym. VOTE NO ON ACTON’S DPW DEBACLE! (See references H & I.)
7. TOO SMALL ON DAY ONE! The PROPOSED DPW project building is too small for current/future equipment, which is the exact same mistake that was made in 1969. VOTE NO ON ACTON’S DPW DEBACLE! (See reference F.)
6. NO NEW TAXES! The PROPOSED DPW project would require yet another override, the year after an override that only passed by about 42 votes. VOTE NO ON ACTON’S DPW DEBACLE! (See reference A.)
5. WAY TOO EXPENSIVE! The PROPOSED DPW project building is 20 to 25% more expensive, compared to similar DPW projects in Massachusetts, on a cost per square foot basis. VOTE NO ON ACTON’S DPW DEBACLE! (See references D & G.)
4. NOT IMMEDIATELY NECESSARY! The existing DPW facility is not falling down. VOTE NO ON ACTON’S DPW DEBACLE! (See reference C.)
3. 100s OF VOTERS IGNORED! Acton’s Select Board has completely ignored over 500 supporters of a petition, asking for a reasonable budget for sidewalks in conjunction with the PROPOSED DPW project. VOTE NO ON ACTON’S DPW DEBACLE! (See reference J.)
2. 100% OF DPW NEIGHBORHOOD IGNORED! The Select Board has completely ignored the concerns of the Robbins Park neighborhood and the DPW neighbors regarding pedestrian SAFETY. VOTE NO ON ACTON’S DPW DEBACLE! (See reference J.)
1. FINCOM STILL SAYS NO! Acton’s Finance Committee is unanimously opposed to the PROPOSED DPW building project and has been from the very beginning. If the Select Board has been unable to convince even the Finance Committee, then why should Acton voters be convinced? Acton voters should NOT be convinced. VOTE NO ON ACTON’S DPW DEBACLE! (See references A, B, & C.)
References
A. 2024-10-08 Acton Finance Committee Meeting.
Finance Committee Chair Jason Cole notes that the PROPOSED DPW project requires a debt exclusion override, which must pass by a 2/3 vote at Town Meeting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4PJH0mNcHg#t=1h20m48s
B. 2025-01-31 Acton Select Board Meeting (Joint Moderated Session with Finance Committee Re DPW).
Meeting moderator Bart Wendell notes that without desperation, there can be no consensus and that there is no consensus between the Select Board (100% in favor of the PROPOSED DPW project) and the Finance Committee (100% opposed to the PROPOSED DPW project).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGLLAPA0Zh4#t=1h17m0s
C. 2025-02-11 Acton Finance Committee Meeting.
Finance Committee Chair Jason Cole notes that there are vastly cheaper ways to do the PROPOSED DPW project and that the existing DPW building is not falling down.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIB68hSWXfY#t=0h21m0s
D. 2025-02-11 Acton Finance Committee Meeting.
Finance Committee Member Greg Jarboe notes that compared to similar DPW projects in Massachusetts, Acton’s PROPOSED DPW project is 10-14% too large.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIB68hSWXfY#t=0h26m30s
E. 2025-02-24 Acton Select Board Meeting.
(Note that this was my most recent in-person statement, and I have been absent since because I broke my left wrist in early March.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnKabWZwXmY#t=0m17s
“Hello, Erik, E-R-I-K, Heels, H-E-E-L-S, 17 Forest Road.
I am here to make a NOW-FAMILIAR PLEA for Forest Road sidewalks for the SAFETY of the DPW neighborhood. The terms ‘DPW Sidewalk Project’ and ‘Forest Road Sidewalk Project’ are used interchangeably.
First, our Change.org petition (Build Sidewalks On Forest Road For A Safer Acton (MA 01720)) now has over 450 supporters (https://www.change.org/acton-sidewalks). I want to thank those on Forest Road, in Robbins Park, and in Acton at large for the overwhelming support that you have given to this project and to me personally. It is this support that keeps me going, thank you.
Second, there is at least one pizza shop owner on Great Road who is confused about what we are asking for. So let me clarify. We are proposing that the cost of building sidewalks on Forest Road be rolled into the DPW building project and bonded as a single unified project. The DPW project makes ALL OF ACTON SAFER, and sidewalks on Forest Road makes Robbins Park SAFER FOR DPW NEIGHBORS who are most impacted by the DPW (past, present, and future).
Third, regarding COST. Quoting from slide 34 of the 2025-01-10 Town Manager’s budget presentation, and based on a $43M DPW project cost, the ‘Current estimated taxpayer impact (based on FY2025 valuation) [of the DPW project] is approximately $336 for the average single-family household, $196 for the average condo household.’ Using 1.7% as the estimated cost of sidewalks on Forest Road, the estimated taxpayer impact of sidewalks (1) for a single-family household would be $5.72/year, which is 1.6 pennies/day, and (2) for a condo household would be $3.33/year, which is 1 penny/day. 1.3 pennies/day on average.
Fourth, regarding SAFETY. The industrial DPW operation moved in to the residential Robbins Park neighborhood in 1969. In the 55 years since, the population of Acton has nearly doubled, and the traffic on Forest Road has increased at least that much. It is INHERENTLY DANGEROUS for bikers, walkers, joggers, baby strollers, wheelchairs, and dogs to traverse Forest Road – without sidewalks – side-by-side with dump trucks, snowplows, fire engines, and all of the other Acton vehicles that fuel up at the DPW.
According to my notes, there are only 4 regular Select Board meetings remaining before the April 29 Town Election and May 5-6 Town Meeting. I sincerely hope that the agendas and minutes of these remaining meetings reflect a commitment by the Select Board to (1) fix the broken DPW building and (2) fix the DANGER on Forest Road.
Erik Heels, 17 Forest Road, HEELS H-E-E-L-S at ALUM A-L-U-M dot MIT dot EDU (heels@alum.mit.edu), Actonian since 1995.”
F. 2025-02-25 Acton Finance Committee Meeting.
Select Board Member David Martin shows a slide that (inadvertently) illustrates how the PROPOSED DPW project is already undersized as it is 100% full with existing vehicles with zero room for expansion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmVJ3-B2BrE#t=1h12m55s
G. 2025-02-28 Acton DPW project vs. Medway DPW project.
Medway’s DPW cost is 46% less than the Acton cost ($506/sqft Medway DPW vs. $935/sqft Acton DPW; in 2025 dollars).
Medway DPW Project:
– CONTRACTOR: Colantonio Inc. (https://www.colantonioinc.com/projects/medway-new-dpw-facility/)
– DATE: Completed in December 2020
– ADDRESS: 155 Village Street, Medway MA
– SIZE: 33,000 square feet
– COST: project cost $13.2 million ($16.7 million in 2025 dollars) ($506/sqft 2025 dollars) (https://archive.townofmedway.org/sites/g/files/vyhlif12846/f/uploads/state-of-the-town-presentation_final.pdf)
– CERTIFICATION: Energy Certified by the International Living Future Institute
– ENERGY: facility’s roof and vehicle canopy are covered with a photovoltaic array system that provides 100% of the building’s energyActon DPW Project:
– CONTRACTOR: Weston & Sampson (https://www.westonandsampson.com/)
– DATE: planned 2026-2027
– ADDRESS: 14 Forest Road, Acton MA
– SIZE: 46,000 square feet
– COST: projected $43 million ($935/sqft 2025 dollars)
– CERTIFICATION: Zero Energy?
– ENERGY: heat pumps (wells)
H. 2025-03-03 Acton Select Board Meeting.
Select Board Member Dean Charter (and DPW Building Committee Chair) suggests that opposition to the PROPOSED DPW project may be a class issue (white-collar people versus blue-collar workers).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzuGw4km4v8#t=2h3m32s
I. 2025-03-03 Acton Select Board Meeting.
Select Board Member Alissa Nicol (inadvertently) notes that there is a gym in the police and fire buildings but not in the PROPOSED DPW facility.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzuGw4km4v8#t=2h19m20s
J. Build Sidewalks On Forest Road For A Safer Acton (MA 01720).
500 supporters and counting!
https://www.change.org/acton-sidewalks
LEGAL DISCLAIMER & NOTICE: The “Sidewalks For Acton” campaign was started by and is funded by GiantPeople LLC, a single-person LLC founded in 1999 by Erik J. Heels (heels@alum.mit.edu). Erik has been an Actonian since 1995, an independent voter for 40 years, and a recent member of the MA Democratic party (joining 2024-09-11). Erik claims to publish the #1 blog about technology, law, baseball, and rock ‘n’ roll at giantpeople.com.
For some reason, the following video is no longer public. Below is a transcript, generated by Notta.ai, of this video:
* The Acton Finance Committee Ballot Series – Question #1 (DPW) (2025-04-14)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JdhrksxYTk
You can also read FinCom’s letter to the editor of The Acton Exchange here:
* Letter: Finance Committee Advises Voting No on Question #1 (2025-04-11)
https://www.actonexchange.org/letters/letter-finance-committee-advises-voting-no-on-question-1/
—snip—
Hi, I’m Greg Jarboe. I’m a member of the Acton Finance Committee. I’m also a member of the Public Works Facility Building Committee. And I want to speak to you today about question one which will be on your April 29th town ballot.
Question one is – there’s a lot of shorthand for it – but basically is it’s a debt exclusion. And the Finance Committee voted this past week, unanimously, to urge you to vote no on question one.
Question one is debt exclusion for a specific project. It’s the DPW building and you may be hearing about that later because it’s also in article seven. But for the debt exclusion to work, first of all it has to pass by a fifty percent plus one vot during the April 29th town election. And then it is brought to town meeting a second time where it then has to pass a two-thirds plus one vote at town meeting.
But let let’s take the first iteration of it which you will see on the ballot as question one. And we on the Finance Committee – and I’m speaking as their designated representative on the issue – have significant concerns about this debt exclusion request. You won’t see a number on the ballot as to how much is being requested, and that’s legal. But it’s for the project that will be presented in article seven and that latest estimate is 35.2 million dollars for a new DPW building. And what this would give question one gives is the Select Board the authority to proceed with completing this project in the future.
Well, we have real concerns about first of all the overall scope of the project. So the Finance Committee is concerned that this project is going to add about 275 dollars to the tax rate over the next 30 years, and that’s if you have an average single family home in in town or about 160 dollars if you have a condo. And that assumes that we’re going to be able to bond all of this at about a 4.25% rate, which is what the town is currently getting. So that’s a a reasonable assumption to start with. but as you know, we’re living in some very uncertain times, and it’s it’s unclear whether that’s going to be a bond rate we’re going to continue seeing going forward. So we think this warrants extreme caution at this point in time.
Now, we’re also seeing in this current proposal one of the ways that they’ve gotten the price down is to basically assume that we can take about 1.55 million dollars from the capital stabilization fund and apply it to this particular project. And the Finance Committee has concerns about that, because that’s essentially the entire fund and what that basically is saying to the town is: “this is our biggest and only priority that we can foresee in the future.” We’re concerned about that. We’re not sure that that’s the right assumption to make. It certainly will put us into a difficult position if we have some other capital project in the future that we have to consider because it would then require us to go out for another debt exclusion. So using all of the current capital stabilization funds for this project doesn’t seem particularly prudent.
There’s also some contingencies in the current plan in case costs go up, and so there’s about a a 5.2% of the total project cost has been set aside either for construction contingencies or other soft costs going up or down. In a normal year,that would be a prudent number. we are not living in a normal year as you know. And one of the things that we’re concerned about is the tariffs and, yes, I know there was new news about that just yesterday, but guess what? Even after yesterday’s announcement – that the reciprocal tariffs were being suspended for 90 days – the tariffs on steel and aluminum of twenty-five percent, which were authorized March 12th, continue. And what we’re concerned about, particularly for the construction of a new DPW facility, is that these kinds of construction costs if we suddenly find that our construction cost go up twenty-five percent and we’ve got a five percent contingency, we’re going to fall short, and that would put the town in the awkward position of either having to put the entire project on pause or come back and say: “excuse us we’re going to need a little extra before we can complete this again.” We think that is just not a prudent thing to do at this point in time.
Now, there have been some arguments made in favor of moving forward with this project, because we’ve already spent 1.2 million dollars on the design for this facility and that’s true. But deciding how to spend another 35-36 million dollars on construction of the facility because we’ve already spent 1.2 million on design is what we call the “sunk cost fallacy.” And the Finance Committee urges you to take that seriously. This is this is a big expenditure and the fact that, yes, we have authorized and, yes, we have spent some money so far doesn’t basically rationalize or justify moving forward.
Last, but not least, you get to decide. Yes, the Finance Committee is opposed. Yes, the Select Board is in favor, and you can certainly listen to both sides of the argument. I encourage you to do your homework on this one. But at the end of the day, you get to vote, and you get to vote twice. The first time will be April 29th in the town election. You’ll see question number one on the ballot which gives the authorization for this debt exclusion. And then please attend town meeting, which will start May 5th and probably continue to May 6th, that that seems to be our pattern over the last several years. And it’s unclear which day this article, article seven, would come up – possibly on the fifth but as late as the sixth. But it then would require more than two-thirds to vote and the Finance Committee would urge you to vote no on April 29th. You’ll hear from another member of the Finance Committee about why you should also vote no at town meeting. But with that, I thank you for your time and attention and no matter what you do, please vote.
END
Since this article was written, the size of the proposed DPW building has been reduced to 42,530 sqft (https://acton-ma.gov/DocumentCenter/View/10552/Acton-DPW-40-Percent-Design-Cost-Estimate-From-TCi-4-2-2025), and the cost has been reduced to $37,995,690, which is $893.38/sqft.
The DPW base project excludes sidewalks, excludes a sound barrier, and excludes the wash bay.
The Town of Acton MISLEADINGLY uses a $700.49/sqft number, which is based only on the $29,791,811 construction cost, not the $37,995,690 total cost (https://acton-ma.gov/DocumentCenter/View/10551/Acton-DPW-Total-Project-Cost-Estimate—4-2-2025). Even at $700/sqft, Acton’s project is the second most expensive of comparable DPW projects (https://acton-ma.gov/DocumentCenter/View/10260/Similar-DPW-Construction-Costs-Comparison-to-Acton-DPW-Construction-Estimate).
Finally, it is very convenient that the Acton Select Board wants to strictly follow the recommendations of a committee (i.e. the Transportation Advisory Committee) when it comes to rejecting sidewalks on Forest Road, and completely ignore another committee (i.e. the Acton Finance Committee, which is 100% opposed to the DPW project) when it comes to pushing forward with this fatally flawed DPW project.
Erik J. Heels
17 Forest Road
heels@alum.mit.edu
Actonian since 1995
SEE ALSO:
https://www.change.org/acton-sidewalks
https://www.giantpeople.com/17553.html
https://www.facebook.com/groups/2001770363606799/posts/2130255317424969/
https://www.facebook.com/erikjheels/posts/pfbid0L828PQhuwegRnnCpykvRm9UEtuY5EjZpaYG2rY6Xapj8R7GGAZ3sEPbZWZCW1Cfnl
https://www.facebook.com/GiantPeopleLLC/posts/pfbid0MbkVKjp6YqR4g9yDtn1M1cFdmcchffJqsezcSNvkz2Xnoh3uw8LpD3zetAnt9cNzl