A public speaker and members of the Acton Finance Committee spent the meeting disputing whether the town should proceed this year with a proposed Department of Public Works (DPW) facility, focusing on size, upfront cost and energy choices.

The public speaker, identified in the meeting as a select-board-affiliated participant, told the committee the current design follows the feasibility study approved by Town Meeting and that redesign now would waste the $1,200,000 already spent on design. "The proposed building is a good value," the speaker said, adding that equipment needs to be protected from cold and precipitation to preserve readiness and longevity.

Finance committee members disagreed about scope and timing. Several members said the proposed building appears larger than needed and that the town is not in the best financial position to seek a large capital debt now after a recent operating override. "I think your argument about not going back now...is a sunk-cost fallacy," one committee member said, urging a fuller needs assessment and exploration of existing commercial space conversions.

The committee discussed the project cost estimates presented in the feasibility materials. Committee members and the public speaker cited different numbers from past studies: a pre-design feasibility number of about $32 million; a design-level construction cost cited at about $37 million; and a higher "project cost" figure in the $43 million range. The public speaker said the currently presented building is about 10% smaller than shown in the earlier feasibility study but warned that construction inflation could increase cost if the project is delayed.

Heating and energy options were a recurring point. The public speaker and others reviewed a life-cycle analysis comparing natural gas, air-source heat pumps and ground-source (geothermal) heat pumps. One participant said the geothermal option carried substantial additional upfront cost—on the order of roughly $2 million in some estimates—and that the analysis used by the building committee may have overestimated the number of wells required. Committee members noted the town has adopted a "stretch energy code," which limits use of natural gas unless other options are infeasible, and said waivers can be pursued if electric heating is not practical or financially feasible for the application.

Committee members also pressed for clarity on what parts of the DPW staffing must be co-located with equipment (lockers, mechanics, tree warden, operations chief) versus which desk staff could be housed elsewhere to reduce building footprint and cost. Estimates discussed in the meeting suggested roughly 15 desk employees, around half of whom the presenters said need to be colocated with crews; others could be relocated to rented office space. Several members suggested separating "staffing needs" from "equipment housing" to make the capital ask easier for voters to evaluate.

Alternatives were raised: converting existing commercial space, phased construction or a split campus (garage and separate office/locker building). Committee members and commenters also emphasized the risk that asking voters for a large debt exclusion soon after a close override could fail at Town Meeting or the ballot box and recommended bringing a smaller, more focused proposal or delaying until the fiscal picture is clearer.

No formal policy vote on the DPW project occurred during this meeting. The committee scheduled a follow-up joint session with the Select Board for Friday the 28th (meeting participants referenced "Friday the 20 eighth" in scheduling discussion), to continue negotiation and attempt to seek a compromise on scope and timing.

Why it matters: The DPW building is the town's largest proposed capital project discussed at the meeting; its size, energy systems and timing affect long-term debt, operating budgets and service readiness for public works operations.

"We have some trucks that are about 30 years old," the public speaker said, arguing that protecting expensive equipment is part of the business case for indoor storage. Committee members responded that useful lifespans and fleet-replacement plans also factor into the cost-benefit calculus and that parts of the current building may be repaired or phased rather than fully razed and rebuilt.

The meeting included data review from comparables and a spreadsheet analysis presented by a finance committee member who said, after correcting earlier errors, the proposed building's square footage appears roughly 10–13% larger than comparables of similar communities.

Ending: Committee members agreed to continue talks at a second joint session with the Select Board and the DPW building committee. Several members said they are open to a reduced-size or phased project but opposed bringing the current full-cost proposal to Town Meeting this year.