Wednesday, June 24, 2026

Site engineering proposals: Beals Associates and Verdantas

No firm was chosen. The committee agreed to wait until all members can take part.

On 6/24/2026 the committee met with two firms, Beals Associates and Verdantas, about site engineering for the Public Safety Building. Beals Associates said its quoted number is a worst-case figure and that billing will be for actual time and materials. Its work would get the site 'shovel ready' (wetland scientist help, permits, early design). Committee members asked if the work fits the $50,000 set aside for this phase. Beals said it should, unless unexpected problems come up, and it is open to talking about changes. Beals said wetland flagging (marking the edges of wetlands) would take 3-4 weeks, then survey work, with both done by late July or mid-August depending on weather and scheduling. Beals asked the committee to name one point person. It also asked for input from the fire and police departments on traffic flow and building access, and said all possible site access options, such as Meadow Road, should be part of early permit talks. The committee agreed not to pick a firm until all members, including one who was absent, can take part. It discussed an added meeting on 6/30/26 at 5:30 pm.

Verdantas proposal and qualifications

Two Verdantas representatives presented their firm. Verdantas was formerly Horizons Engineering and is now part of a larger national firm, with local staff. One would be project manager and the other would handle site design and permits. The firm proposed a phased approach. It would start with a site analysis of usable land, wetland effects and permit needs. The committee could change the scope as more is learned, and the firm could also provide full design services. Verdantas said wetland flagging could start within two weeks, followed by survey work. It expected to give a digital site image and early analysis within a couple of months. It said the site has a lot of wetlands and little dry upland, so the building's size and shape would need to be flexible, and the committee would need to balance building needs with permit and cost limits.

Project phasing, needs assessment, and RFP plans

The committee reviewed the project phases and how site engineering connects to the needs assessment (a study of what space the departments need). Members said the building's size and layout depend on how much land can be used. They said again that the work should stay within the money already set aside and avoid asking the town for more. Ways to control costs included phased contracting and clear communication with consultants. The committee plans to line up the choice of a site engineer with the needs assessment and conceptual design RFPs (requests for proposals). A member asked if a recently submitted second RFQ (request for qualifications) should have been an RFP, to avoid follow-up interviews. Members said they want a construction company that can work with the geotechnical (soil and ground) work, not an architect alone. This will be discussed more at the next meeting.

Site constraints and permitting challenges

The committee and both firms discussed how wetlands and the permit process limit the site. Both firms said accurate wetland marking and survey work are the base for all later design and permits. They talked about working with the state Wetlands Bureau, including asking for every wanted site feature up front and then negotiating. They also covered how permit types differ by the size of the area affected. The group said building size, layout and site plan will need to be flexible to fit the available land and limit wetland impact. Cost and permit rules will shape final choices.