At a meeting on Oct. 16, 2025, the Town of Lakeville Building Reuse Subcommittee heard a presentation from Apollo Project Management about a proposed building assessment of the town hall and discussed reuse options, septic constraints, energy-code upgrades and public-engagement plans.

Joe Sullivan, project manager for Apollo Project Management, told the subcommittee the firm had solicited input from architects, structural engineers and hazmat specialists and proposed a package of existing-conditions plans, testing and cost estimates to inform a potential town vote. "And that total came up to $24,700," Sullivan said, describing the fee as a budgeted, not-to-exceed estimate for the evaluation and related public meetings and reporting.

The assessment scope described by Sullivan included: architectural and structural review of foundation and bearing walls; hazmat sampling and cost estimates for abatement where needed (including testing for asbestos-containing materials and PCBs); mechanical evaluation to determine longevity and changes needed to heating, ventilation and cooling systems if the interior program is reconfigured; and a modest oversight stipend to cover Apollo’s attendance at public meetings.

Why it matters: the subcommittee, the select board and residents are weighing whether to renovate the existing town hall, reuse another municipal property or build new. The committee noted a separate select-board action has placed the reuse project on the warrant for a special town meeting on Nov. 12; an assessment will provide the cost and technical detail voters would use to decide.

Key details and technical constraints

- Timing and next steps: Andrew (town staff) told the group he expects an updated space-needs assessment to be completed before Thanksgiving and that the subcommittee will use the assessment results to compare options. The group scheduled its next meeting for Dec. 11 at 6 p.m., tentatively in the police station community preservation room.

- Septic and Zone A limits: Committee members and the presenter repeatedly cited the town hall’s location in a Zone A municipal drinking-water protection area and the Board of Health’s position that increases in wastewater flow are not permitted in Zone A. The transcript notes an existing design-flow figure mentioned as "570 gallons a day"; participants said one of the site’s septic tanks dates to 1973 and another was replaced in 1997 and that a replacement may be needed within a few years. The committee emphasized that any reuse plan must be reverse-engineered from the current maximum design flow.

- Hazmat and asbestos: Apollo and committee members said the older portions of the building are expected to contain asbestos-containing materials (vermiculite insulation, floor tiles) and that abatement will be required if materials are disturbed. Apollo characterized most identified materials as non-friable today but said disturbance for sprinkler or other upgrades would trigger abatement work.

- Energy code and accessibility: Apollo cautioned that meeting modern energy-code requirements could increase required wall thickness and effective square footage (Sullivan estimated that a 10,000-square-foot program could need roughly 11,500 square feet once insulation and code upgrades are accounted for). Committee members also noted that substantial work could trigger accessibility upgrades (e.g., elevator, sprinklers) and that such upgrades factor heavily into cost and phasing decisions.

- Program and operational savings: Apollo said the firm will seek potential operational savings — for example energy improvements or grant-funded measures — to offset capital costs. The firm proposed evaluating meeting spaces and flexible layouts to allow community use outside business hours.

Reuse options and public engagement

Committee members agreed that the town should not choose between rehabbing the existing town hall and seeking other properties until the assessment is complete. Several members noted that renovating can in some cases cost as much or more than new construction and asked Apollo and staff to compile recent examples from nearby communities (Norton, Swansea) for comparison. The subcommittee discussed phasing approaches (work area-by-area to keep some operations in place) versus a single full capital project that would require temporary relocation of staff.

The group asked for a two-part public-engagement approach: first, solicit resident ideas about what services or spaces matter most; second, once options and preliminary costs are available, solicit public feedback on specific options (options A, B, C) and trade-offs.

What the subcommittee decided

The meeting produced no binding authorization to build, buy or move; the subcommittee advanced planning steps. Andrew and Apollo will proceed with the assessment work and the committee will review the findings and updated space-needs information before pursuing a preferred reuse path. The subcommittee scheduled its next meeting for Dec. 11 at 6 p.m.

Formal actions

The only formal recorded vote during the meeting was the motion to adjourn. A motion to adjourn passed on a roll-call vote; the transcript records recorded ayes from Darling, Max, Don Foster and Delia Murphy.

Ending

Committee members said the assessment results and the space-needs update will be essential to determine whether to rehab the current town hall, reuse another municipal building or build new. Apollo’s $24,700 not-to-exceed assessment proposal and the town staff’s updated space-needs document will be the next items the committee reviews before making further recommendations to the select board and the public.