Capital Plan Garners Widespread Praise In Joint Meeting

The Town of Sudbury has a freshly-minted 15-year capital plan, and it was met with widespread praise from members of the Sudbury Select Board, Finance Committee, and Capital Improvement Advisory Committee on the evening of October 22.

The positive sentiment alone is a fundamental shift in the way financial management has been discussed in the years prior to Town Manager Andy Sheehan’s arrival in 2023. Add in new Assistant Town Manager and Finance Director Victor Garofalo, who has been a key contributor to capital projects like the on-schedule, on-budget Atkinson Pool renovation, and it’s no surprise that Sudbury’s elected and appointed officials were effusive in their praise on Wednesday night.

At its core, the 15-year Capital Plan is a mundane municipal document that catalogues capital assets and forecasts replacement dates and costs. In Sudbury, capital assets cost $20,000 or more and have a useful life of five or more years, so the level of detail captured in the plan is significant. Sheehan described it as a “living document” insofar as so much can change from year to year. But it’s a foundation for long-term planning, and one that members of both the Select Board and Finance Committee have been asking for since before Sheehan took over as Town Manager in Sudbury.

While Sudbury has had three town managers since 2019, it was Sheehan, his Assistant Town Manager, Victor Garofalo, and a committee of senior staff who delivered the most comprehensive and adaptable plan the Town has seen in that time, and perhaps ever.

In total, the plan contains 560 projects over 15 years, with a total projected cost of over $192,000,000. That was not a surprising number for the panelists in the meeting, but the scope, scale and variety of projects that have been inventoried is certainly exhaustive.

Sheehan’s memo delivering the plan concluded: “The 15-Year Capital Plan is a proactive, data-driven approach that ensures responsible stewardship of public assets while promoting transparency and community trust.” Panelist from the various committees tended to agree, though there’s more to come.

Key Considerations

Sheehan solicited feedback on the plan, and he received plenty over the course of a long discussion. Select Board Vice Chair, Janie Dretler, called out that the plan doesn’t contemplate a school building replacement in the 15 year plan. Chair Lisa Kouchakdjian added that school building consolidation should also be considered.

That was in addition to a concerning absence in the capital plan — Sudbury Public Schools (SPS) had zero capital projects listed on their section of the spreadsheet. Facilities-related projects, which are under the purview of Combined Facility Director Sandra Duran were included, but there was nothing pertaining to other capital needs at SPS. Sheehan’s memo stated “Note: Sudbury Public Schools were invited to participate in these meetings; however, there was no representation other than from the Combined Facilities Director.” (Page 31)

In a reassuring turn of events, Sheehan informed the panelists that SPS was working on a capital plan that would be added at a future date.

Tom Travers, a member of the Capital Improvement Advisory Committee, asked if the plan would contemplate future staffing needs and readjust capital project priorities accordingly. Sheehan confirmed that it would be part of the next steps now that the foundational capital plan was in place.

Longtime Finance Committee member Eric Poch emphasized how the capital needs in upcoming fiscal years vastly exceeded the capacity to fund the projects based on historical capital spending trends. Staff acknowledged that reality, and emphasized that further prioritization would be required in upcoming fiscal years.

Finance Committee member Hank Sorett questioned if the plan had contemplated “nice to have” versus “need to have items” and went on to question if the plan was proposing net-new capital assets or simply maintaining what the Town already had in place. It was made clear by the administration that everything in the plan was an existing capital asset.

Next Steps

Much of the discussion pointed towards the next steps in the process, which Sheehan and Garofalo acknowledged would be critical. They also outlined those steps in the memo that was sent to committees before the meeting:

“Next Steps

1. Refinement: Align the capital plan with available funding resources.
2. Funding Strategy: Finalize approaches to meet both short- and long-term capital needs.
3. FY27 Capital Request: Prepare and present for approval to the Select Board, Finance
   Committee, and CIAC.
4. Ongoing Oversight: Commit to annual reviews and updates to ensure the plan remains
   current and responsive.”

One point Sheehan emphasized was that the baseline capital plan was somewhat of an “inventory” rather than a definitive plan for any given fiscal year. Everything from the project prioritizations to the funding sources could change in the months and years to come. While the Town has implemented software that helps them forecast replacement dates for equipment, for example, you can’t predict with great accuracy when a piece of equipment with a useful life greater than five or ten years will ultimately fail.

In terms of ongoing planning, Sheehan established a Capital Planning Committee from across departments and school districts to create the plan. That committee will continue to meet, according to his memo, to:

“The Committee will continue to meet regularly over the coming months to:

• Reassess project priorities and sequencing
• Explore cost-saving strategies and alternative funding sources
• Adjust the scope and timing of proposed projects to ensure fiscal sustainability”

Explore Further

Readers interested in the capital plan can review Sheehan’s memo on page 31 of the Select Board packet here. The spreadsheet pages start on page 35.

The full packet is embedded below and the recording of the meeting should be available on Sudbury TV soon.