Public Safety Building Committee
Meeting Minutes
April 4, 2007
6:30 PM Holden Light Department
Present: Christopher Lucchesi, Mary Ryan, Hal Lane, Bob Beck, Karl Makela,
David White, Jack Chandler, George Sherrill, Richard Bates, Peter Liddy, Gene Stirchak
Absent: Brian Forts
Others Present: Peter Brooks (of Kaestle Boos), Melissa McKeon, David Ellis, Ed Weathersbee, Jessica Shumway, David Chapin, Shelia Bachant, William E Hale, Mark Bibace, Peter Benoit, Barry Tupper, Sean Smith
The points below begin with the title of the original agenda item.
Call to Order:
The meeting was called to order at 18:40.
Approval of previous meeting minutes (March 21, 2007):
Chief Chandler offered corrections to a few spelling errors. It was noted the person to make the motion to close the meeting was incorrect. No motion to approve the minutes of the March 7th meeting was made. This point was held over to the next meeting.
Public Comment:
Chairman Lucchesi noted that the Committee appreciated all comments from the public but that the Committee will try to avoid dialogue in the meeting to stay on agenda. Having said that Chairman Lucchesi also noted that there are many avenues to reach and communicate with the Committee and encouraged all who are wishing to be involved to do so.
Ed Weathersbee: Mr. Weathersbee stated his opinion that the Fire Station and the Police Station should both be near the High School. There are two reasons for this: first, being near the High School reduces the response time to calls from the school, and second, the visibility of the departments will deter trouble that may occur at or near the High School.
William Hale: Mr. Hale is a resident of the neighborhood in which the Creamer property resides. Mr. Hale noted that there is neighborhood opposition to having a Fire Station constructed on the Creamer Property. The neighborhood is already very busy: for example, there are town houses being built in the area and the play fields at Davis Hill are used extensively. The Fire Station and the required facilities will increase the congestion. Also, Highland Street at the Creamer Property is heavily traveled and is narrow, making it difficult for fire apparatus to get in and out of the property. The Committee should consider the opposition of the neighborhood around the Creamer Property to building a fire station on this site.
Chairman Lucchesi thanked the speakers for their thoughts and noted that the Committee will consider these issues during their discussions.
Updates from the Chair:
Planning Board
Chairman Lucchesi attended the March 27 Planning Board meeting. Chairman Lucchesi noted there was not a quorum of the Planning Board at the meeting so there was no official meeting. Chairman Lucchesi was able to talk with the Planning Board members present in a general discussion. The growth in the Salisbury Street area was again mentioned. It was also noted that the streets in the Salisbury area have been laid out in such a way that handles traffic better than many of the streets found on the north side of town. The consequence of this observation is that while a sub-station may eventually be needed down Salisbury Street, the north side of town may need such a station closer because of the road conditions.
Meeting with the Town Manager
Chairman Lucchesi met with the Town Manager and discussed the comments arising from a meeting of Mr. Bullock with Larry Galkowski of the DPW and Chiefs Sherrill and Chandler regarding a possible combined facility(s) for Fire, Police and DPW. The upshot is that Mr. Galkowski of the DPW is working an architect considering various options for a new DPW facility and a facility combining all three departments was one of the concepts kicked around. It was no more than that. With that said, Chairman Lucchesi emphasized that this Committee has its mission, which does not include the DPW. Chairman Lucchesi also noted that the DPW will need a large property and such a property that is useful as a Public Safety Building site and a DPW site does not exist. The conclusion is that this Committee will continue its work without regard
of the DPW to develop a proposal for Public Safety Facilities in Holden
Site Selection / Evaluation:
Chairman Lucchesi presented a re-cap of the important decisions made at the last meeting. First, it was unanimously decided to pursue separate facilities for Fire and Police. Second, the Damon House property was selected as the primary site of consideration for a Police facility. Third, all sites needing the Town to purchase land were removed from consideration as the money needed to purchase the property was considered to be better spent on building costs.
The sites remaining in consideration for a Police facility are Damon House (site of primary consideration), Creamer property and the existing fire station. The sites remaining in consideration for a Fire facility are the existing fire station, Creamer property and Holden Sand and Gravel. Chairman Lucchesi reminded the Committee that just because separate facilities are the primary route to be considered, this does not mean the Committee will chose to build one new facility and not two. This Committee needs to find a solution for both the Police and Fire facilities.
Chief Chandler related to the Committee that the build one now, one later option has become divisive. The article in the Landmark has had a tough effective in the Department. The Fire Department has 50 volunteers, all voters and all needed to support the Department in its mission. The effect of the article mentioned above has been to alienate the fire department volunteers. Replacing a 25 year old structure while renovating a 50 year old structure is ridiculous. Do both together now; there will not be a better chance and passing on this opportunity will be costly (it is 5% to borrow now while costs are rising at 10% a year). Also, one issue not to forget is that the emergency ambulance needs to come in house with the Fire Department. Chief Sherrill echoed this message.
Mr. Makela made a motion to do both project simultaneously, even if physically separate. Mr. Bates seconded this motion. Mr. Makela, arguing in favor of the motion, noted that the divisiveness is detrimental and needs to stop here. Mr. Bates noted that the Committee was charged to provide facilities to both departments. Mr. Bates thought that the minutes and the Landmark were wrong.
Mr. Lane noted that at the last meeting the vote for 2 buildings was made without knowing what the costs of the options. Mr. Lane asked for 3 estimates from Kaestle Boos: 1. renovation of the Fire Station for the Fire department alone; 2. renovation of the Fire Station for the Police Department alone; and 3. Renovation of the Fire Station for a combined facility. Mr. Lane is concerned with what could happen at the Town Meeting if the Committee comes in with 2 distinct projects. With a Police Facility costing $8-9 million and renovation of the Fire Station at approximately $3.5 million for a total of $12 million, a person at the Town Meeting could split the warrant with the result one building project is completed and the other is ignored. A combined facility eliminates this possibility.
Chairman Lucchesi noted the Committee makes a recommendation to the Select Board while the Selectmen set the warrant. Michael McKeon of Kaestle Boos in speaking with Chairman Lucchesi noted that he is in the process of having some preliminary estimates made for the Committee.
Mr. White stated that what ever the Committee comes up with, say $5 million for Police and $3 million for Fire for an $8 million total, the warrant can be worded so that the article is not amendable or split-able. In order to do this all that is need is to remove the phrase “and do anything required there of”. This is a possible strategy in this situation. A question of whether this is procedurally legal noted it is but ethically there may well be concerns. Mr. Beck noted that the Town meeting has supported the past proposals; it is the Town vote where the worry of defeat comes. Ms. Ryan noted that the Committee has been shooting in the dark without knowing the costs and if a renovation of the existing Fire Station supports the needs of either Department.
Chairman Lucchesi brought the Committee back to the motion on the floor (to do both project simultaneously, even if physically separate). The vote was 7 in favor with one abstention; the motion passed
Chairman Lucchesi presented an analysis of data found in the Needs Assessment developed for the Police Department. The current needs assessment was developed from a needs assessment that was prepared after the first Public Safety Building proposal was defeated (the then current Committee requested an analysis of what separate Police Fire facilities would cost). That past assessment served as a starting point for the current assessment. The current assessment also took into account what options the Police Department might forego in trying to reduce space needs. The result was a reduction from 19,744 square feet in the original analysis to 17,845 square feet in the current assessment. The analysis provided by Chairman Lucchesi grouped the various spaces into 5 categories: prisoner space, Police staff, Public space, general
facilities space, and storage. The analysis showed where the February 2007 needs assessment had been reduced in comparison to the February 2005 needs assessment. The data was presented in various ways: how the total space was allocated between categories, the fully list of spaces as named by Kaestle Boos, and then a break out of each category by room. As an example, Public space was reduced from 610 square feet to 510 square feet by reducing the size of the lobby, the vestibule, and the public toilets. General facilities spaces were reduced nearly 20% through creative design (for example, placing AC on roof or behind the building). In general, the spaces were reduced without jeopardizing public safety or the Police Department’s mission.
Mr. Beck asked Chief Sherrill if the reduction has his blessing. The answer was yes, Chief Sherrill supported the reduced needs assessment. Chairman Lucchesi noted that both the old and new designs called for a 4 car garage for Police vehicles in a 1200 square foot detached garage. Mr. Makela asked if this plan assumed there was no cellar. Mr. Brooks answered the assessment makes no statement on the building layout. Mr. Makela noted that a basement could have many things placed in it reducing the footprint for the building; Mr. Brooks agreed. Chairman Lucchesi asked for a confirmation that the 17,845 square feet is not the surface need. Mr. Brooks confirmed this; the 17,845 square feet is the total floor space of the building over how ever many floors deemed necessary. Mr. Brooks cautioned the Committee having a basement
is dependent on the water table at the site. Mr. Makela noted that some of the possible room types in a basement could include storage, locker rooms, fitness centers, etc. Chairman Lucchesi noted that the needs assessment is intended to give an estimate of what types and the amount of space is needed but it is not a detailed design. Mr. Beck asked if a 2 story building was the general idea. Mr. Brooks replied not necessarily, but the space at the Damon property is such that this is likely. It was again noted that the detached garage at 1200 square feet is not included in the 17,845 square feet for the building (it was also not in the original 19,744 square feet calculated in February 2005). The spaces in the current design are:
Prisoners 2745 square feet
Police Staff 7535
Public 510
Facility 5810
Storage 1245
Mr. White noted the reduction made in space requirements but asked if the room sizes in the current plan are really correct considering the cost of building space at $400 per square foot. Mr. White raised specific examples as possible areas for further reductions, including the secretary’s office, the sergeants’ office, the exercise room, and the Chief’s office (225 square feet). Mr. White noted that two secretaries in the Town offices share a 180 square foot office. Chief Sherrill noted the building was programmed for expansion which takes many shapes (not only people but records, equipment, etc.). Mr. Brooks noted that public safety facilities are not re-built often, that larger spaces are needed if the building is to be flexible enough to serve the Town in the future. Mr. White noted that there are
methods to reduce the room needed for certain things. Records can be kept electronically in a computer system rather than on paper. Mr. Bates noted that based on the needs assessment file space is needed. Mr. Stirchak noted that much of the records are evidence that needs to be retained physically. Mr. White questioned if the evidence is retained in offices. Chief Sherrill and Mr. Brooks noted that officers often are required to have records stored in their offices. Mr. Bates noted that fitness or exercise room while costing $300,000 (750 square feet at $400 per square foot) reduces other costs related to sick pay, disability claims, etc. and is quickly recouped. Mr. White asked where the fitness room is in the current Police Station; it is downstairs. Mr. White estimated the current space at 700 square feet but Chief Sherrill thought it smaller than that (Mr. Bates noted the fitness room at the current Police Station is very cramped). Mr. Makela noted that a basement in the new
facility could take the fitness room. Mr. Brooks agreed assuming the lighting and the over head room is present.
Chairman Lucchesi noted that 35% of the building is needed to “gross up” the net space requirements of the needs assessment (corridors, stairways, etc) which can not be reduced. The area for detainees, which include the sally port, processing area, cells could not be reduced due to legal mandates for these spaces. The areas where space reductions are possible were pressed hard to get to this size. Of the things that have surprised Chairman Lucchesi, the analysis showing where space reductions were possible and how little was possible is one of them. Mr. Beck noted that of the Public Safety facilities visited in other towns that had been in service for only a few years, the one comment repeated is that space is already inadequate. Mr. Lane noted that the public’s complaint about public building is they
don’t work and that a new building is needed to fix the situation. Why build something that is going to be obsolete or too small in 10 years? What % of the space needed in a wise design is needed for growth? Mr. Lane noted he does not know but observed once built, the building is the one we will be stuck with. Chief Sherrill pointed out that the Sterling Public Safety building that is brand new is already too small. Mr. White observed that in his experience people in offices tend not to grow out of their offices. The common areas should be kept large as these are often the areas reduced to the point of being too small. Mr. White repeated that the offices in the plan are larger than needed. Mr. Lane noted that the Police Department will inevitably add people (regulations grow, never diminish) and that these offices are likely to house two people in the future. Mr. White noted that the current plan triples the space available in the current Police Station. Mr. Lane asked how
long has the current Police Station been of inadequate size. Mr. Bates asked Chief Sherrill how big is his office now (120 square feet). Mr. Bates argued that the Chief’s office has to be bigger than this because of job related activities: interviews, press coverage, group discussions both with staff and the public, etc.
Ms. Ryan stated that the Committee has to let the public know what the building is for. In her experience public buildings are always too small, especially when new systems and requirements are coming in as they do. The space available now is too small and more room is needed. It is part of the Committee’s job to sell the plan that is decided upon. Chairman Lucchesi noted that it is the Committee’s intention to have Public Safety Building 101 made available to let people hear what is needed and to ask about the plan as it is proposed. Going into a Police Station is not something most people have to do and it is eye opening to go into one. As an example, in the current Police Station finger printing, which is now done with toxic chemicals, is done in the basement without ventilation. A new facility will have
ventilation and spaces set up so that this can get done safely.
Chairman Lucchesi noted that what needs to happen for this project is we need to move to conceptual design in order to develop cost figures. Mr. Makela asked if the Committee can give guidelines to the formation of this design, such as the building must be 2 stories or must have a basement. Chairman Lucchesi has noted that Kaestle Boos has been working on such a design. Mr. Brooks commented that any guideline will ultimately depend on site conditions for implementation. Chairman Lucchesi noted that Kaestle Boos has been present at all of the Committee’s meetings and is moving in the direction Mr. Makela mentioned. Mr. Makela commented that the Committee should move quickly on the Police Station design to be able to get to the fire facility work. Chairman Lucchesi noted that the Committee wanted to understand the
needs assessment in order to better understand what was needed in the Police facility. Chairman Lucchesi asked if Kaestle Boos could provide a rough concept design at Damon House with an estimate of the cost. Chairman Lucchesi also asked if other tasks can be initiated now such as soil testing or other actions. Mr. Brooks replied that it is too early; a conceptual design needs to be reviewed and accepted by the Committee before other aspects are begun. Ms. Ryan noted that the property appears to be too small for the parking needed base on a 1 or 2 story building on the Damon House property. Mr. Brooks noted that the 2005 studies of the Damon property showed that a 2 story building will allow for 30-60 cars. Mr. White asked about access from the Damon property onto Main Street. Mr. Brooks noted that access directly to Main Street from the lot will be difficult and that access from Highland Street is the more likely option. Mr. White also noted that inclusion of a basement with 2
stories above grade reduces the amount of the Damon property lot required for the building and leaves more for parking, etc. Also, the heavier building equipment could go to the basement (boiler, air handling, etc.). Mr. Brooks noted all the ideas and said that Kaestle Boos will work with all of these in a conceptual design but also cautioned that they may provide only small advantages. Chairman Lucchesi noted that the Committee knows the site is in the Historic District and what it will need to look like. Chief Sherrill noted that on the parking issue, the library across the street needs more parking at opposite times from the Police Station (the Police Station needs additional parking at night while the Library needs more parking spaces during the day). Mr. Makela asked how many parking spaces are currently at the Damon House now. An estimate of 15-20 was made but Mr. Makela asked that the actual number be reported.
Chairman Lucchesi noted that the Damon property was deeded to the town and distributed copies of the deed. The Chairman noted he had not fully reviewed the document to understand what, if any, restrictions are named in the deed. Chief Sherrill said from his reading of the document that there are no restrictions against building a Police facility on the property but also noted this needs to be confirmed. Chairman Lucchesi said that he will have the deed reviewed and will come back at the next meeting with his findings.
Fire Facility Needs Assessment Review and Discussion
It was noted that Mr. White, Mr. Liddy and Mr. Bates all need a copy of the Fire Department’s needs assessment.
Chairman Lucchesi noted that he is attempting to ensure Bob Mitchell will attend the 18 April Committee meeting to talk through with the Committee the Fire Departments needs and conceptual design. Chairman Lucchesi noted the options left under consideration currently include either renovation or building new at the existing Fire Station site (Chairman Lucchesi noted there are possible soil condition issues at this site for either option), the Creamer property, and Holden Sand and Gravel.
Mr. White made a motion to remove Holden Sand and Gravel from consideration as a site for the Fire Station. Mr. Makela seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Makela noted that the Committee has heard from the neighborhood around the Creamer property their opposition to placing a Fire facility there. In general, a neighborhood is not a good site for a fire facility because of the noise, the traffic and the danger and fear of having large, loud trucks moving quickly in the area. Mr. Makela made a motion to eliminate the Creamer property from consideration as a site for the Fire Department’s facility. Mr. Lane seconded the motion. Mr. Bates noted that with this motion only one site would remain under consideration. Mr. White asked Chief Chandler if he had a chance to speak with his senior officers regarding any concerns with the width of Highland Street at the Creamer property and the ability of the trucks to safely pull out from the property. Chief Chandler said that
with a driveway constructed of proper radius there were no big concerns with pulling out of the property. The bigger question that arose concerned the road from the Creamer property to Main Street. There is little room for cars to pull over to allow trucks to pass on that segment of Highland Street. Mr. White also noted in his conversations with neighborhood residents on Damon Road there was no support for building a fire facility on the Creamer property. Mr. Beck noted his past advocacy for building the Fire Facility on the Creamer property. The reasons remain the same: it belongs to the town and is available now; the response time is better to a larger portion of the Town than is currently the case; and more area is covered in the same amount of time as with the Main Street Station. With no reflection on Fire Department personnel, Mr. Beck recalled that 30 years ago 2 kids lost their lives because the fire truck couldn’t get to the scene in time. The Creamer property also
offers more protection to the North part of town. Mr. Bates noted that Mr. Beck did a great job with his presentation of information in support of the Creamer property and did this with the best of intentions. Mr. Beck asked if this motion was being considered prematurely; without knowing the cost of renovation on the current site it may cost much more than building new somewhere else. Mr. Beck proposed that the Committee should get cost figure from Kaestle Boos before taking this vote. Mr. Beck also noted he could not understand the urgency in hurrying this decision. Mr. Lane noted that the data for response times presented were based on where volunteers lived currently. Also, Mr. Lane considered the mix of big trucks and kids to be dangerous. The Committee knows the neighborhood opposes this proposal. Mr. Beck agreed that while it is not known where future volunteers for the Fire Department will live, it is probable that Holden will have paid fire fighters living at the station
and having the station closer to more homes counts. Mr. Makela noted that it is not intended to expand the current Fire Station dramatically because sub-stations will be needed in the north part of town and that the current site should be kept as the coverage will be better. Mr. Makela also noted that if the Committee narrows the sites under consideration, the conceptual design process is easier. Chief Chandler noted that if the current Fire Station is renovated it would be expanded to twice the current size of the facility. Mr. Makela noted that this expansion will utilize less expensive materials. Chief Chandler also note that if the Creamer property is eliminated from consideration, then the only other site for the Police facility becomes the existing Fire Station site. Mr. Beck asked when cost estimates would be available. Mr. Brooks responded that he would need to speak with Mr. McKeon to determine this. Chief Chandler asked if the Committee could get to a less detailed
estimate than a conceptual design but more than a site sketch. Mr. Brooks was reluctant to pursue this course because for the estimate to have utility the details were needed. Chairman Lucchesi reminded the Committee that Bob Mitchell is coming to the next meeting to work on exactly these items. Chief Chandler noted Mr. Mitchell is making sketches for how the building might look. Mr. Beck asked how important it is to get one site for each building. Mr. Brooks said it make a difference as it will allow Mr. Mitchell to concentrate on one site and get to a conceptual sketch. Mr. Beck asked if this is needed to get to a figure for renovation costs. Mr. Brooks said that no, a conceptual sketch is not needed to which Mr. Beck responded that the urgency is not apparent then.
The motion to eliminate the Creamer property from consideration as a site for the Fire Department’s facility was passed with a vote of 6 for and 1 against.
Mr. White noted that the Committee should be concerned that the current ambulance contract expires in 2009. Construction on the Fire facility will not begin until 2008 and something will be needed for the interim. Mr. White suggested putting up a building on the Creamer site to house the ambulance until the Fire facility is ready. The Recreation Department could then use that building once the ambulance moves out. Mr. Makela asked if the current house on the Creamer property is being used now and can the ambulance crew find quarters within. Chairman Lucchesi noted that the house is in use but that there are 2 bedrooms and a bathroom available. A connecting access can be built between the ambulance garage and the house. Mr. White noted that work can not proceed on this option until the Committee takes the decision that
the Creamer property will not house either of the two public safety facilities; Chairman Lucchesi confirmed this is the case.
New Business
Dissemination of Information
Chairman Lucchesi suggested that a presentation be made to the Select Board on the whole site selection process and results. This was agreed to by the Committee. Mr. White stated that April 23rd is the only date that makes sense and that he will place this item on the Board’s agenda. Chief Chandler asked if a 15 minute presentation at the Town Meeting in May made sense. Mr. White cautioned against this as the meeting’s agenda is usually very full. Mr. Makela noted the Select Board Meeting will get extensive exposure. Mr. Bates asked if a timetable for the Public Safety Building 101 presentation existed. Chairman Lucchesi said that the Committee needs to get to a conceptual design first because the detail is needed in order to make the salient points in the presentation. Ms. Ryan said the presentation needs to
explain what areas are needed in the conceptual design and why. Chairman Lucchesi agreed that the design would be projected for all to see the flow of activities through the buildings. Ms. Ryan added that the need buildings need to be compared to the existing building to expose the benefits and needs. Chairman Lucchesi said that he will prepare the presentation and asked what time should he expect to be on the agenda. Mr. White responded expect 7:30.
Future Agenda Items:
Bob Mitchell has been invited to the next Committee meeting. There will be extended meeting time while Mr. Mitchell is present to discuss consequences of renovating the current Fire Station or building a new station. Chairman Lucchesi will distribute a summarization of the Fire Departments Needs Assessment to all Committee Members. The summary of the Fire Department’s Needs Assessment is similar to the summary of the Police Department’s Needs Assessment. Chairman Lucchesi asked if getting data from the previous projects to compare to this assessment was of use; the majority of the Committee said yes, there was utility in the comparisons.
To emphasize the point, Chairman Lucchesi again noted that the focus of the 18 April meeting will be on the Fire Department.
An idea was proposed to the Committee by the Chairman. There is an election in May; would it be worthwhile for Committee members to present at the polling stations handing out flyers on the project? The flyer would contain the Committee meeting times, the email address for the Committee, etc. Mr. White stated the proposal for handing out flyers at the polling stations would be mixing apples and oranges (speaking directly with voters would be ok but mixing the project with candidates would not be good). Ms. Ryan suggested a flyer would be better if included in the bills from HMLD. The Chairman agreed with the later suggestion and will prepare a flyer for inclusion in the HMLD bills. The Chairman will run the flyer by Committee members before sending to HMLD for inclusion in the electric bills.
Mr. Beck suggested that Recreation Department summer program sign up usually has lines of people waiting; this would be a good place to distribute flyers regarding the project. Chairman Lucchesi asked if the date was known when the sign ups would be held but as this was not known he would pursue the idea and come back to the Committee.
Mr. White suggested that Holden Days was an ideal time to present design and project progress to the general public since the Committee should have substantial information to share by then. Mr. Brooks said Kaestle Boos is excited about presenting projects at public events and has a history of helping committees such as this communicate with the public. Chief Sherrill suggested that the booth from IPEC would be something worthwhile to show during Holden Days. While Mr. Brooks thought it might be too focused on Police facilities, Chief Sherrill encouraged including the booth in a general presentation. Mr. Bates agreed that Holden Days is a prime opportunity to give information to the public regarding public safety buildings. Mr. Lane noted that people in Holden really want improved public safety facilities but the costs of
the previous projects were not seen as providing equal benefits. Mr. Lane advocated that it should be stressed that waiting to build results in higher costs due to the rising costs of construction. Mr. White stated that, with all due respect, comments from the last meeting that were printed in the Landmark chastising voters for voting no on the last project’s proposal was not right; don’t relive history, don’t criticize people for voting, rather bring something forward that the majority of voters can vote for. The Committee needs to show the voters a proposal that is the best solution that can be found and show people what the monies will provide. The more concrete the details provided are, the more the message will be remembered and passed on. It is necessary to justify the costs and needs in order for a proposal to be passed.
Public Safety Building Tours
On Saturday, 14 April, Committee members who can attend will leave from the Holden Senior Center at 8 AM to visit other public safety buildings recently built or being built now. The tour will start with the Foxboro combined Police and Fire station that is currently being built and continue on the Upton Fire and the Grafton Police facilities.
Public Comment:
Barry Tupper: Mr. Tupper noted he is a member of the Holden Fire Department with 13 years of experience in the Fire Department. Mr. Tupper thanked the Committee for the work the Committee is performing and acknowledged that this is a difficult task. Mr. Tupper also noted that locations for these facilities are limited. Mr. Tupper reminded the Committee that there was opposition to building the light department building where it is today at the time the building was proposed but that today there is no opposition. Cost is the bottom line to the project. The cost of building on the site of the current Fire Station was an issue in the last proposal. Decisions made in this Committee to date have been made without knowing the costs that are the consequences of those decisions. Additionally, patching an old and bad building is
dicey to begin with. Mr. Tupper also reminded the Committee members that during renovation fire equipment will have to be moved somewhere while the renovation is underway. Lastly, while not chastising voters, people do need to know the cost consequences of delay, and the longer it takes to build the needed facilities, the more it will cost to build.
Chairman Lucchesi thanked the Mr. Tupper for his comments and noted that the Committee will consider these issues during their discussions.
Adjournment:
Mr. White made a motion to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Beck. The vote was unanimous to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 20:55.
| 
