Public Safety Building Committee
Meeting Minutes
February 7, 2007
6:30 PM Holden Light Department
Present: Peter Liddy, Christopher Lucchesi, Hal Lane, Bob Beck, Karl Makela, Jack Chandler, George Sherrill, David White, Richard Bates, Mary Ryan, Brian Forts,
Gene Stirchak
Others Present: Michael McKeon and Bob Mitchell (of Kaestle Boos), Phil Klausmeyer, Amy Klausmeyer, Mott Burnham, Bill Braley, Ed Weatherbee, Brenda Weatherbee, Maria Johnston, James Johnston, Louise Hugo, Karen Green, Jane Arntz, Steve Dubrule, Bryan Diehl, Al Sculthorpe, David Ellis, Todd Shaw, Jim Kitchen, Don Mancini, Art Korandanis, Gary Vostok, E. Vostok, William Hale, Lucy Banks, Mark Bibace
The points below begin with the title of the original agenda item.
1. Call to Order:
The meeting was called to order at 18:30.
2. Approval of previous meeting minutes (January 17, 2007):
One brief comment to the minutes of the January 17, 2007 meeting regarding a program vs. a construction manager and the need for one on this project was noted as deferred to a later date. There were no further comments or changes to the minutes proposed. Acceptance of the minutes as written was moved by David White and seconded by Bob Beck. The minutes were accepted by a vote of 8 to 0 (one Committee Member had not yet arrived at the meeting).
3. Public Comment:
As the attendance of many people to the Committee who had not yet attended this meeting, Chairman Lucchesi made the point that Public Comment is not intended to be a conversation between the Committee and members of the Public rather a chance for the public to have input to the Committee on topics of interest. Below, each person commenting is noted with their comment and any observation made by the Committee.
Chet Wesolowski: Mr. Wesolowski suggested that the Committee should consider Morton Buildings Inc. if a new building is being considered. This company provides everything from architectural services to a 50 year guarantee. Chairman Lucchesi said for the Committee this would be included in the Committee’s thinking.
Steve Dubrule: Mr. Dubrule requested further information from the Committee on the consideration of the Caswell King building (what could happen and when). It was noted by Chairman Lucchesi that every site mentioned in the Committee’s deliberations is considered on its own merits and that the Committee is at the beginning of the site selection process. This applies to the Caswell King property as well as all other properties mentioned.
Janet Hardy: A question concerning Walgreen’s consideration of the site was deferred to the Town Manager. A question regarding the time table for the Committee to make a proposal to the Town was made. Chairman Lucchesi noted that the October was set by the Town Manager in his instructions to the Committee as the expected time a proposal from the Committee should be given to the town. A further question was asked as to expediting this time table in consideration of Walgreen’s purchase of Caswell King is expected to close in the summer of 2007. Chairman Lucchesi noted that the Committee hears and understands the concern underlying these questions but that this Committee is considering only what is needed for Holden’s Public Safety buildings needs and can not be used to block some other action by another
entity.
Jim Kitchen: Mr. Kitchen re-iterated that there is a timing issue if Caswell King is to be considered with Walgreen’s purchase to close in August and this Committee to make a proposal in October.
Gary Vostok: Mr. Vostok asked about the conditions in the purchase and sale of the Caswell King building. Chairman Lucchesi responded that the Committee does not have this information as it is outside the scope of this Committee’s responsibilities and again that any site mentioned to date is under consideration on its on merits for a Public Safety building in Holden.
Steve Dubrule: Mr. Dubrule asked if either of the Chiefs have given any comment on the viability of any site and especially the Caswell King building. Chairman Lucchesi answered no; there have been no discussion of the viability of any site in Committee deliberations to date by the Chiefs.
Janet Hardy: Ms. Hardy asked if the Committee and consider this site in view of the Walgreen’s purchase and sale agreement now in process. David White responded that eminent domain can be used at any time once the Town votes to proceed with a site and plan. Any sale would be put on hold once the Town votes. It was also noted that if eminent domain is exercised prior to execution of the sale agreement for Caswell King, the Town would be working with the current owner. Ms. Hardy concluded with a request to the Committee to advance the time line.
Karen Green: Ms. Green asked if the Robert Led Building is under consideration. Chairman Lucchesi re-iterated that the Committee has only briefly thought about any one site. Criteria that need to be developed to proceed to serious consideration of any site include size of the property vs. needs of the Fire and Police Departments, 1 or 2 buildings, and 1 or 2 sites, among others. All this will determine the viability of any site for placement of a Public Safety Building. Mr. Lane added that the Committee appreciates the concerns voiced. The Committee is considering sites shortly but the timing is not known at this time.
Chairman Lucchesi thanked everyone who attended for their involvement in the process to find solutions to Holden’s public safety building needs and encourages all citizens to give feedback to the Committee either through attending the PSBC meetings or through emailing the Committee at PSBC@townofholden.net. This Committee is committed to recommending to the town the most cost effective solution to the public safety needs of the Holden community.
4. Updates from the Chair:
Introductions: Chairman Lucchesi introduced Michael McKeon and Bob Mitchell of Kaestle Boos. Mr. McKeon is out of the Kaestle Boos Foxboro office and will be the point person from Kaestle Boos to this Committee, attending all Committee meetings. Mr. Mitchell is a specialist in the design of facilities for fire departments and Kaestle Boos uses his expertise in fire station placement and design. Mr. Mitchell lives in upstate New York and will be present at Committee meetings only when issues require his input.
Town Meeting: The Town meeting went well. The warrant article was approved by a unanimous vote of those attending the Town meeting. With the budget now set, the Committee is fully able to pursue its mission.
5. HFD Structural Analysis Review and Discussion:
The Structural Analysis of the existing Fire Station was distributed to Committee members. The floor was opened to questions.
Mr. White asked that based on the analysis and in general construction terms, would it be cost effective to renovate and add to the existing structure. Mr. McKeon responded that the analysis shows there is value in the existing fire station but that this Committee needs to decide how it wants to proceed to ultimately answer that question (one vs. two public safety buildings, what will be included in a fire station, etc.). Once the needs are defined, planning can proceed and a cost-benefit analysis would be provided to the Committee. This should occur in a month or so from now. Mr. White noted that there is a viable potential to proceed with renovating and adding to the existing fire station if the Committee chooses to move forward with separate public safety building for fire and police and that the scenario
he presented at the last meeting (see section 6 of the 17 January 2007 Meeting Minutes for a description).
Chief Chandler noted the report was not just a “use as is” recommendation but included that considerable work was needed to shore up the floor where the trucks are parked. There are concerns regarding the reliability of the floor under those circumstances. Mr. Bates shared this concern. Mr. White agreed that the analysis of the cost of renovations was needed. The value of the final asset would have to be such that the cost of the work needed was appropriate for the scenario to be recommended.
To this point, Mr. Makela asked Mr. Mitchell if renovation of fire stations were a good approach. Mr. Mitchell noted he had worked with many renovation projects. He noted that the scenario outlined by Mr. White above could be done but that the timing of phases was always tricky. As an example, Mr. Mitchell noted that the space in back of the existing fire station may not be enough for the proposed addition to be cost effective. Topography, view lines on Main Street, the existing restrictions on traffic lights on Main Street all may effect the viability of this proposal as much as the structural needs of the existing building.
Mr. Makela asked if this type of renovation costs more than other options. Mr. Mitchell said sometimes yes, sometimes no. Time is needed to study the situation to develop a proposal. The process of calculating space requirements and location of the building on the property has been started. The proposal will make sense once completed and presented to the Committee.
Ms. Ryan found the report valuable as renovation is at least an option at this time. Ms. Ryan also noted that fire service to the northwest section of Holden and new growth in Holden also needs to be considered in any plan. Ms. Ryan also noted that the average number of fire stations for towns the size of Holden is 2.68. Sites for sub-stations will need to be considered
Mr. Beck thought that it is too early to ask the in-depth questions but that the Committee needs to proceed with looking at space and needs requirements in order to proceed. Mr. Beck also stated his satisfaction at having Mr. McKeon and Mr. Mitchell on board with the Committee.
Mr. Lane asked Mr. McKeon and Mr. Mitchell what does the Committee need to answer for Kaestle Boos to move quickly; is the question of one or two buildings critical? Mr. McKeon yes, the question of 1 or 2 buildings is needed and that he had been thinking of two at this stage. Mr. Lane also stated that two buildings makes sense as there are not enough choices for sites to contain one main Public Safety Building. Mr. Lane agreed that sub-stations made sense but questioned how this was included in this Committee’s calculations. Mr. Makela agreed with the two building option as sites for 1 building were too few. Mr. Makela urged the Committee to proceed with formally deciding one or two buildings.
Mr. White said that the Town Manager at the Selectmen’s Meeting stated that they are thinking that Police, Fire and DPW facilities would be built together. This came from a meeting of the DPW and the Town Manager where it was stated that this Committee should consider how to incorporate the DPW into PSB planning. Mr. Makela reminded the Committee we excluded this option at the 6 December 2006 Committee Meeting. Chairman Lucchesi confirmed this adding this Committee recognizes the current connection between the DPW and the fire department due to the sub-station at the Chaffin DPW site.
Mr. Lane proposed that the Committee ask the Town Manager to stop with the discussion of public safety building in town offices, especially regarding combining Fire, Police and DPW, because sites for such a combination are few, and the appropriate sites for a DPW facility are not residential where the Fire Department needs to be close to. Chairman Lucchesi noted the Committee is not privy to these discussions and until the proposals are formally brought to this Committee, they are not the Committee’s concern. Chief Chandler noted that the Holden Sand and Gravel site was discussed as a site for a combined Fire, Police and DPW (one or multiple buildings) but added that until the needs of each department are known, the suitability of the site cannot be judged. Mr. White further asked where the DPW study is in its
preparation.
Mr. Makela wanted to gage the Committee’s desire to entertain a motion regarding one vs. two buildings at this time. Mr. Makela felt this would allow for greater progress of the project. Chairman Lucchesi felt now would not be a good time to decide this as the Committee does not know what the needs of our Police and Fire Departments are; until this is known, any decision is an uneducated assessment. Chairman Lucchesi also noted he would proceed with the motion if it is the Committee’s pleasure. Mr. Forts asked what the cost of running the current public safety facilities is. As the Town will not take the 50 year view due to the cost, the Committee will need to plan for what is needed now by the Fire and Police departments, incorporate some room for growth but leave the facility(s) in such a way that building
additional space in the future is possible. What are the space requirements now for the Fire and Police Departments? It was noted that Chief Chandler and Mr. Mitchell started this assessment for the Fire Department today. Mr. McKeon and Chief Sherrill will be starting for the Police Department soon. For now, the work will be done with the assumption of two separate facilities. Mr. Lane stated that if adding on to the current Fire Station is the plan, then two sites is the only possible option and that he would be willing to go along with the motion. Mr. White stated that expansion from current needs in the Fire Department is likely to be at sub-stations so expansion space for the main Fire Station need not be considered. Since we know from previous Committees what a combined facility would cost, the work of this Committee should be to explore two separate facilities.
Mr. Forts asked what a Fire sub-station would have in it; garage only? Living quarters? Chief Chandler stated that the staff currently stays over night only at the main station. A sub-station would be constructed with 2 floors where the upper floor would be left wide open so that it could be built out with sleeping quarters as needed. Mr. Mitchell noted that sub-stations cost much less than main stations since there is no need for training rooms, offices, storage areas at a sub-station. On the average, a sub-station requires 3500 square feet at a cost of approximately $1,500,000 (estimate of cost by Mr. White).
Mr. Mitchell noted that he has tracked costs for building fire facilities and has found that there has historically been a 10% increase in costs year to year.
Mr. Beck reminded the Committee that there are really 3 entities that need consideration; ambulance service along with Fire and Police. With this in mind, where would the ambulance service go, to the Fire or Police Station if 2 facilities become the plan? Chief Chandler indicated the EMS and ambulance service goes to the Fire Station but this is dependent somewhat on whether we retain contracted ambulance service or the ambulance service becomes a town service. Chief Sherrill agreed with this.
Chairman Lucchesi asked Mr. Mitchell how often has he encountered an elevated floor in fire station which holds the fire fighting trucks the size of which are present in Holden. Mr. Mitchell stated he has seen worse situations than the one present in the current Holden Fire Station. Mr. Mitchell noted he was impressed with the soundness of the current building but also noted he is concerned that fuel and apparatus is parked over meeting and office areas. This increases risks but is not unheard of in fire stations. Chairman Lucchesi stated he was encouraged by knowing the current fire station has value but wondered if the station might be considered as a sub-station. Mr. McKeon noted the current fire station is an asset to the Town but whether it can be made to serve the Town as a Fire Station or as something else depends
on costs and needs.
Chief Chandler asked if the station is being used within proper stress limits on the floor in the equipment bays. Mr. Mitchell noted that Kaestle Boos does not know how the floor is constructed internally but simply by observing the absence of flaking concrete from the underside of the bay floors (the basement ceilings) it appears to be ok. The fact that fire fighting equipment is getting heavier, and the plans within the Fire Department to have more rolling stock carrying water, causes concern over the floor.
6. FLAME Analysis Review and Discussion
Chairman Lucchesi summarized the flame analysis as looking at the road network with the location of fire stations and showing areas of time to respond to an emergency call. This also takes into account the conditions of the road, expected traffic and manpower available to respond in a given time frame. From the last project, many maps depicting this analysis were made for various sites considered. The significance in this analysis is the relative response capability of a give site.
The software used to prepare the maps shown from the last project is now defunct. Kaestle Boos is acquiring new software to update the old map but has not yet received the software from the manufacturer. It is expected to arrive in a couple of weeks.
In general, the current situation and most scenarios considered by the past projects end up with an assessment that says the response time to the middle of Holden is good but either end of Holden is not as well covered. Mr. Beck noted that the analysis as previously done does not consider population density (how many residences are in any given response zone), only time and distance. A new analysis should include this aspect. Chief Chandler noted the new software does consider population but response times due to distance and traffic and population served may be on separate maps.
Mr. Beck noted he is still a proponent of the Kreamer property on Highland Street as it offers the greatest number of responders with the best response times for the greatest part of Holden’s residences. Mr. Mitchell noted that if cost consideration precludes a full new building, then a sub-station properly located is the best tool to expand coverage. Mr. Beck reminded the Committee that the Salisbury Street area is where the largest growth is expected in Holden and is poorly covered now. Mr. White noted that should the DPW move to the Holden Sand and Gravel site, then the Kreamer property is very poor as it would place the DPW (currently a site where a sub-station exists) close to the main station. Also, Mr. White noted that new houses are being built with fire suppression capability incorporated.
Chief Chandler stated that this is present where required but is not universal in new buildings. Mr. White asked what types of calls are most frequently received. Mr. Beck said home owners will not care about this aspect if their house is burning. The closer the response is to more homes, the better the site is and especially so for older homes. Mr. Beck again noted that marshalling time at the Kreamer property is better than the current fire station. Chief Chandler noted that a sub-station in the Chaffin area will always be needed but if the DPW moves to the Holden Sand and Gravel site, then the Fire Department will have to adapt as best it can. Chairman Lucchesi made the point that the DPW – Fire Department link may not always be as strong tomorrow as it is today and that may force changes. Mr. Beck further noted the Fire Department is likely to be less volunteer personnel and more career personnel oriented in the future. This change results in response time as the only
factor to consider in a flame analysis, dropping the marshalling time argument. Mr. White noted that he can not support the Kreamer property as a Fire Station site because it is in the middle of neighborhood. Also, the current station, next to the High School, is best because the High School has the highest concentration of people present in Holden during the day with immediate response should anything untoward happen. Mr. McKeon noted that the Kreamer property would require a 300 foot setback from Highland road, requiring time to get to Highland Road and the cost of constructing and maintaining this driveway.
Chief Chandler asked how the Committee was going to proceed with site selection; should all sites be listed, with pros and cons to each. Mr. McKeon noted that Kaestle Boos developed a matrix chart of sites for purposes of comparing sites. Chairman Lucchesi noted that the matrix will contain a list of sites considered in current discussions. Mr. White advocated that the list should be devoted to single building sites, again since we know from the previous project what a site with both Fire and Police would cost. Mr. McKeon stated that within the matrix, a point system can be established to help with consideration of sites across a number of issues. This will help patterns emerge. Mr. McKeon stated he would develop the matrix with sites currently under consideration and would bring an outline of a process to
choose a site to the next Committee meeting.
During this discussion, Mr. Makela pushed his request that a motion be made to decide now between one or two sites. There was too many Committee Members who could not proceed with this decision based on the paucity of information before them.
Mr. Forts again brought up the requirement for a needs assessment and an assessment of how much to build today and how much to defer for future building. Mr. Forts further noted that taking properties off the tax roll was not the best option for the Town either. Mr. Liddy asked about the floor plan for the last project; what was the split between the Fire and Police department of the 38,000 square feet in that plan? The figures were around 18,000 sq. ft. for the Police Department and 20,000 sq. ft. for the Fire Department. Mr. Liddy noted the current Police Station has 6,000 sq. ft. Mr. Liddy asked would 12,000 sq. ft be acceptable today for the Police Department. Chief Sherrill said his opinion was that 15,000 or 16,000 sq. ft. would be appropriate for now. Mr. Forts asked how we know this is the right
amount of space. What can be reduced, remembering the Town has twice said no to previous proposals? Chairman Lucchesi noted that the February 2005 needs assessment for the Police Department resulted in a net space requirement of 14,500 sq. ft. which upon grossing up totaled 19,744 sq. ft. (grossing up includes hall ways, closets, heating equipment space, etc. with the net space). The gross space requirement from the February 2005 needs assessment for the Fire Department was calculated as 24, 246 sq. ft. The total for the two departments from the needs assessments was 45,000 sq. ft. This was cut down to 38,000 sq. ft. in the last project and failed in the Town vote.
In bringing up the space calculations from previous projects, this was meant to become a framework for proceeding in this project. It was noted that certain space requirements, like cells for prisoners, are established by law and can not be reduced. Mr. Makela further noted that costs are not just for space but are also affected by the materials of construction. Mr. Mitchell noted from his experience that there always will be people within any given community saying a public safety building project is too expensive and characterize the proposed structure as a Taj Mahal. This is not a function of the cost of the project or the materials used. Any community needs a group of people who will lead the community to a decision based on the benefit to the community. Trying to sell a public safety building project
on the basis of lower costs probably will not work because the building that meets the community’s needs will cost what it costs.
Chairman Lucchesi started to wrap up this segment by noting the Committee will need to put together a package for the Town showing what was considered, comparing the cost against the need of the community. The cost figure will need to stand on its merits (benefits).
Mr. Forts asked if the Committee could take a stand on how far out the planning process should consider; 5 years? 10 or 15 years? He noted that any building built today (to meet tomorrow’s needs) will always be cheaper today than waiting to build tomorrow. To this, Mr. Mitchell noted the main Fire Station will not grow, that sub-stations will be needed instead. Training costs and space for training will go down as the number of professional fire fighters grows. The trouble with this scenario is that the cost of amortizing the depreciation of a building over 20 years is always less than hiring a professional fire fighter (an estimate was 2 fire fighters amortized over 20 years equals 6800 sq. ft. of building depreciation). Mr. White noted that the HMLD Building is an example of what can be done
carefully choosing materials and building schemes. It is not a monument but a useful, functional building that employed various methods of construction to match needs.
Mr. Beck went back to Mr. Mitchell’s comment on the lower cost of a volunteer department over a professionally staffed department. Mr. Beck was curious on how that can be achieved. Chief Chandler, in discussions with local colleges that have programs for the development of fire fighters, is exploring the possibility of having those college students live at the fire station. By providing room and board, the students would be required to provide coverage to the Town as volunteer fire fighters. A question was raised as to the acceptance by the fire fighters union of this possibility. Chief Chandler noted that if this possibility were utilized, there would be no jobs lost by the professional staff and that these students are training to become professional fire fighters who will eventually join the union
while relieving the need for volunteer fire fighters. One additional question was asked: Why are there fewer call volunteers? Chief Chandler noted that most people have less free time, training requirements are up, there are fewer fires and with the cost of houses going up, the number of people willing to act as volunteer fire fighters is limited.
Chief Chandler made a request to add the Bateman property (on Main Street just north of the High School) to the list of sites to be considered. Mr. McKeon noted that this was on the list compiled during the last project.
7. Recurring Business Discussions:
Dissemination of information to citizens: Chairman Lucchesi noted there is no information ready to go out at this time, but that the Select Board was the obvious place to start once there was. Mr. Makela advocated the idea of a once a month presentation to the Select Board as a good practice. Chairman Lucchesi will ask the Town Manager to post a tape of the last presentation to the Select Board on the Committee’s web site as a way of disseminating information to the public. Chairman Lucchesi asked if all the Selectmen remain in the room during his Select Board presentation. Chairman Lucchesi noted that the support of Select Board is really needed and that leaving the room during the presentation was a potential sign to others of a lack of support. Mr. White noted that the Selectmen all watch the replay of the
Select Board on public access TV but Mr. Lucchesi stated his point still stands.
8. New Business:
Future Agenda Items:
Planning Board or Conversation with the Town Planner. From comments made during the last meeting’s Public Comment session by Mr. Lies, it was acknowledged that this Committee should know where future growth is being planned. Conversations with both the Planning Board and the Town Planner were advocated.
Needs Assessment. This is needed to get at one or two sites.
Town Manager and DPW Planning. Where is this process.
Matrix from Mr. McKeon. The current list of 12 plus others will be developed by Chairman Lucchesi and Mr. McKeon. Damon House, Fairlane and Bateman properties will be added
Process for Determining Site. To be brought by Mr. McKeon.
9. Public Comment:
Mark Bibace: It was not understood how the DPW can not be part of this discussion as DPW workers play such a big part in the Fire Department now.
Jim Kitchen: Mr. Kitchen noted that the longer it took to get to a decision the more expensive any choice would be. The process by which decisions are reached should also be conveyed to the public.
Steve Dubrule: The matrix from Kaestle Boos is a good idea; will this be done by the next meeting? Mr. McKeon noted Kaestle Boos will do the best they can but will need the Committee to weigh in on issues to make progress. Mr. McKeon also noted that the matrix will utilize information collected during previous project.
David Ellis: Mr. Ellis noted that there were many scenarios mooted during the meeting. Chief Chandler has been given an additional possibility that will be brought up at a later date.
Mr. Lucchesi thanked both Mr. Ellis and Mr. Lies for their comments.
10. Adjournment:
A motion was made by Mr. Beck to adjourn. Mr. Bates seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 20:50.
| 
