TRURO — Construction of a new Dept. of Public Works facility, which town officials had hoped to complete by 2027, appears unlikely to meet that deadline. The project is mired in controversy over environmental concerns, interpersonal conflicts, and confusion about the meaning of this year’s town meeting votes related to selecting a site.
On May 5, voters approved an amendment to Article 13, which allocated $2.8 million for engineering costs focused “predominantly at the Town Hall Hill site, excluding the 340 Route 6 site.” But Town Counsel John Giorgio of KP Law told the ad hoc building committee on Nov. 7 that the authority attached to town meeting votes was narrowly defined.
“Town meeting appropriates money, but it cannot mandate spending,” said Giorgio. That executive authority rests with the town manager and select board, not with voters or the ad hoc building committee, which is charged with advising on the facility’s design and possible “cost-saving improvements.”
Giorgio said that the town meeting vote did not — and legally could not — determine the location of the new DPW.
While the $2.8 million authorized by Article 13 may not be spent exploring the Route 6 site, Giorgio said that a different appropriation or other funding, including grants and private gifts, could be used for that purpose. No such funds, however, are currently available.
The $2.8 million has been directed in part toward the Phase II Environmental Site Assessment at Town Hall Hill, which began in July.
As the Independent has reported, that assessment turned up several tons of buried debris and a leaking 275-gallon oil tank that required action by the state Dept. of Environmental Protection. Clean-up efforts included the removal of 45 cubic yards of contaminated soil and 30 gallons of oil, waste oil, and petroleum.
Monitoring for PFAS
According to the Immediate Response Action Plan issued by HRP Associates in September, soil borings at the Town Hall Hill site in July also discovered PFAS, the so-called forever chemicals that have been linked to health risks.
Though PFAS could result from an oil spill, DPW Director Jarrod Cabral told the ad hoc building committee on Oct. 24 that the depth of the PFAS, 120 feet near test pit 5, suggests a separate source — the July oil spill did not sink that deep, he said. He added that more boring samples would be required to assess the scope of the PFAS contamination.
Cabral told the committee on Nov. 21 that the town had installed three monitoring wells along Meeting House Road to determine the extent of PFAS in the groundwater.
The environmental assessment of the site, which was initially expected to take four to six months, is ongoing. Cabral told the Independent last week that there would be a more detailed Phase II update at the select board meeting on Dec. 10.
Objections to Route 6 Site
During the Nov. 7 ad hoc building committee meeting, some residents insisted that the 340 Route 6 site was off the table. That site, adjacent to the town’s fire and police depts., is town-owned and already equipped with water and septic infrastructure.
Laurie Lee, president of the Cranberry Hill Homeowners Association, lives near 340 Route 6 and favors the Town Hall Hill site for the DPW. She objected to the Owner’s Project Manager (OPM) contract for the project, which includes plans to assess different sites.
In 2022, Lee presented a petition with 200 signatures to the select board that claimed the 340 Route 6 site must remain a “wooded buffer.” Town Planner Barbara Carboni ultimately determined that was not, in fact, a legal requirement or condition.
Michael Forgione questioned the validity of the OPM contract with Environmental Partners, which is tasked with reviewing all the information relevant to the DPW facility planning.
Giorgio defended the contract, which was approved by the select board on Oct. 22, and said that it is common for major building projects to include the evaluation of alternative sites. But he added that the restrictions on the $2.8 million and the amounts funded by different sources should be memorialized in the contract.
Tensions escalated during the Nov. 7 ad hoc building committee meeting when select board vice chair Bob Weinstein, then the liaison to the building committee, accused committee member Anthony Garrett of improprieties related to the Truro Part-Time Resident Taxpayers Association. Weinstein also mentioned the PFAS contamination on Town Hall Hill.
Weinstein agreed with Giorgio’s opinion that the town meeting vote did not require siting the DPW on the Town Hall Hill site, but his confrontational tone drew sharp criticism from the ad hoc committee.
Weinstein Steps Aside
A Nov. 15 ad hoc building committee meeting called to address Weinstein’s role as liaison resulted in a unanimous vote to request that he be replaced. Committee member Anastasia Song condemned his conduct as “borderline abusive, inappropriate, and unwanted. We really don’t have time to waste with these types of issues,” she said. “We have work to do.”
Criticism of Weinstein’s behavior was also expressed in public comments at select board meetings on Nov. 12 and Nov. 19. Dennis O’Brien called Weinstein’s remarks part of a broader pattern of verbal attacks.
Before the Nov. 19 select board discussion of his conduct, Weinstein resigned as liaison to the ad hoc committee and nominated Sue Girard-Irwin as his replacement.
Girard-Irwin, who had requested the agenda item on Weinstein’s conduct, called his comments at the Nov. 7 meeting a “general overreach” of his role as liaison as well as a failure to represent the select board appropriately.
Select board chair Sue Areson added that, when speaking in public forums, select board members must clarify whether they are speaking as private citizens or on behalf of the board. Weinstein had not made that clear, she said.
“Raised voices, accusations, anger — none of it is OK coming from the select board,” said Areson. “We need to hold ourselves to a higher standard.”
The board voted unanimously to appoint Girard-Irwin as the new liaison.
A DPW Project Timeline
2013: Relocating DPW added to town goals and priorities.
2019: Weston & Sampson completed initial feasibility study, proposing a 36,689-square-foot upgraded facility.
2020: Feasibility update reduced proposed size to 32,487 square feet and later to 29,608 square feet.
2022: New feasibility update retained 29,608-square-foot size.
2023: Select board voted to recommend 340 Route 6 site.
2024: Refocus on Town Hall Hill site, with Weston & Sampson adjusting proposed size to 21,670 square feet and restoring 1,500-square-foot custodial storage area previously removed from the estimate.
