Public Safety Building Committee
Meeting Minutes
January 3, 2007
6:30 PM Holden Light Department
Present: Peter Liddy, Christopher Lucchesi, Hal Lane, Bob Beck, Karl Makela,
Jack Chandler, George Sherrill, David White, Brian Forts, Richard Bates
Others Present: Charles Boos, David Ellis, Mark Bibace, Alesia Bessette, Gene Stirchak, Alan Moreay, Ken Woodbury
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 (December 20, 2006):
Several points were raised. A discussion of the degree of detail to be included in the minutes reach a consensus at having the minutes be more detailed than not. The Secretary needs to be sure that draft minutes do not go out to people other than Committee Members prior to approval of the minutes by the Committee. Agenda item titles need to be added to the minutes to clarify the minutes (action to the Secretary). In the future, it was noted that Committee Members who cannot attend a given Committee meeting will read the minutes from that meeting to stay abreast of Committee progress. Lastly, a point of omission in the draft minutes was note. It was noted that a discussion of communication with the architect needs to be from a single source within or at least authorized by the Committee. The following verbiage will be
added to the 12/20/2006 minutes by Mr. Stirchak (Item 3) as it reflects a point from the discussion of the Committee:
A procedural point was made regarding contact with Kaestle and Boos. No Committee member will directly contact Kaestle and Boos without being authorized by the Committee. It will be the responsibility of the Chair of this Committee to maintain contact with Kaestle and Boos. There was complete consensus on this point.
Acceptance of the minutes was moved by David White and seconded by Bob Beck. The minutes were accepted by a vote of 6 to 0 with 2 abstentions.
3. Public Comment:
Chairman Lucchesi made the point to the meeting that Public Comment is not intended to be a conversation between the Committee and members of the Public. Mark Bibace asked the Committee what is the point or goal of this segment of the agenda. The Chairman responded that the Committee wants to hear all input regarding the work towards the updating of Public Safety facilities in Holden. It was noted that this will be an unusual practice compared to other working committees in Holden and should be regulated to ensure this Committee makes progress on the business at hand.
4. Discussion/Review of Kaestle Boos extension agreement draft:
Chairman welcomed back Charles Boos. A draft extension agreement was distributed to Committee Members Tuesday for review. The discussion regarding the draft centered on the figures for Needs Assessment and Site Selection, and Schematic Design. From the last meeting a total of $75,000 was proposed as the costs for professional services from the architect and physical surveys of proposed sites where needed, splitting this money $50,000 and $25,000 respectively. It was noted the Warrant has been set with these figures (see below, item 5) (it was also noted that the previous minutes were deficient in that they did not spell out this split in costs). Mr. Boos agreed these figures will be included in the revised agreement and stated as not to exceed. Mr. Boos said this estimate was made on the assumption the project
will be ready to take a proposal to a Town Meeting in May for full funding of the project(s).
Hal Lane moved that the Committee accept the extension agreement with the proposed changes to the cost figures in the agreement as stated above. Brian Forts seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Boos will send the amended agreement to Chairman Lucchesi who will forward the agreement on to the Town Manager.
Mr. Boos asked that a calendar of meetings and special events (such as Town Meetings, Board of Selectmen presentation, etc.) be sent to him. Chris Lucchesi will forward the Committee’s calendar to Mr. Boos. Mr. Boos also told the Committee that he and a Structural Engineer form Kaestle Boos will be in Holden on the 4th of January to begin the structural assessment of the existing Fire Station (it was also noted that borings around the existing Fire Station had already been performed as part of the previous project’s work).
5. Discussion of Town Meeting funding request:
The Town Manager was consulted on the approach the Committee proposed last meeting to Warrant Articles for the Town Meeting (one article for $50,000 for architectural services and $25,000 for services associated with site survey(s), a total of $75,000 and a second article for $5,000 for the possible activities of the Committee). The Town Manager strongly suggested that one article was a better option. One article was written requesting $80,000 with the breakdown above included. There was a meeting of the Select Board Tuesday the 2nd of January at which that article was opened and closed and is now on the agenda for a Town Meeting scheduled for January 29th, 2007.
There was a short discussion of the amount of funding requested in the articles for the architect’s work needed to get a proposal ready for a May Town Meeting. When compared to the previous projects budget for this portion of the project at 150,000, the $50,000 request now might seem small to some. However, this Committee and the architect has access to all the information developed previously which should speed progress.
6. Discussion of January Select Board Meeting Presentation Message:
In preparation for the Town Meeting, the Committee has been given a place on the January 16, 2007 Select Board Meeting agenda. Chairman Lucchesi will present for the Committee. The current thinking is to present plans and progress of the Committee to date. Chairman Lucchesi asked what else could be included with profit. A number of comments ensued.
It was stated that the support of the Select Board was essential and that a direct request to each for their concerns and input be made during the meeting.
It was also suggested that confirming the need for such an update be made during the meeting (it was brought up that 12 years ago a study by the Town stated that new Public Safety facilities were needed).
David White again confirmed he has made it clear to the Select Board that they need to be aware of the project and to provide feedback and comments to the Project Committee. The goal of the presentation to the Select Board on the 16th is to emphasize that this is key project for the town and the funding request is relatively modest.
Next it should be stated to the Select Board that the Committee will check in with the Board after milestones in the plan are reached.
Mention needs to be made of the plan of this Committee to have a communications plan that includes detailed minutes of each meeting plus the Committee invites regular Citizen input each meeting.
A longer discussion centered on the scope of the project and the thinking of Select Board members. It was noted that the previous proposal was not accepted because it was too expensive. The previous proposal certainly was for an excellent facility but how much of this was too much of a good thing? Does the Police Station need to be built with town growth of 2 or 3 times in mind now? If building with that scope in mind is too much, build with the idea that adding an expansion area will occur later. The key is to engage the Board in discussing where this balance lies.
With these comments, Chair Lucchesi has enough details to prepare a presentation for the Board. All members of the Committee who can are encouraged to attend the Select Board meeting on the 16th of January.
At this, Mr. Boos left the meeting.
7. Committee Mission Statement development. (1st Draft):
There was an extended discussion of the need for and purpose of a Mission Statement. There was a diversity of opinions stated both for and against such a statement. It was put forward that the order from the Town Manager defining the Committees purpose and function should be sufficient but it was rebutted that at 2 pages it is not conducive to presenting the project goals in a nutshell. It was also felt that a Mission Statement may place a constraint on the Committee that would result in overlooking some possibilities. It was felt that the Mission Statement would provide one way to keep the goal of the project in front of the public. It was also felt that the focus on facts and the business of the Committee should be the core communications from the Committee. The question was asked what does a Mission Statement provide
that helps the Committee with its message to the public. The answer was it can create a focus at the beginning of any message of facts and Committee business as to the goal of the work and lead to greater understanding of the project. At this point a motion was made by Richard Bates to draft a Mission Statement. The motion was seconded by Robert Beck. The vote was 6 for and 2 against, the motion carried. On the next meetings agenda an item for preparation of a project mission statement will be included. Each member of the Committee should bring with them 3 ideas of what should be in a project mission statement. The ideas will be melded into a draft statement that will then be put into a final form by a smaller group after the meeting.
8. Recurring Business Discussions:
- Dissemination of information to citizens: Much of this was covered in the discussions above. It was noted that the Town’s web site has been updated and that includes a site for this Committee. A short discussion of how to keep news outlets (the Landmark, cable access, etc.) publishing information from the Committee followed. It was noted that presenting regularly at the Board of Selectmen will get the best coverage both in print and video at the lowest cost to the Committee (and the Town).
9. New Business:
-Meeting Schedule: It was proposed that an additional Committee meeting on January 31st be held. The proposal was thought to be too much given that the Monday of that week will be the Town Meeting.
-Other:
The Committee was approached by the Town Manager asking that the Committee speak in support of the warrant articles for funding of repairs to the existing Public Safety Buildings (Chief Chandler passed out a detailed list of the repairs proposed). The Committee while sympathetic and understanding that these repairs are needed, believes the issues are operational and are not within the scope of this Committees work. This was agreed to by all Committee members. Chairman Lucchesi will communicate this to the Town Manager. (It was noted that any Committee member can, as a private citizen, speak in favor of the warrant at the Town Meeting.)
The Chair of the Committee requested that the Committee be set up with an email box through the Town web provider. The public can send messages to the Committee. An automatic response will be sent to the sender thanking them for their input and encouraging them to attend Committee meetings. No other direct response from the Committee is envisioned. A question was asked if a log of emailings will be kept. Chairman Lucchesi will find this out. It was noted that the fact an email box will be available will have to be disseminated to the public and that all emails become part of the public. The Town Manager is checking on the legality of the email inbox and will have the final say on the emails.
It was noted a member of HAT attended the meeting and that other organizations should be encouraged to follow this lead. Also, when plans are ready, the Committee should be ready to attend other organizations meetings to present those plans (as opposed to giving status updates).
The question was posed: Can the Committee review sites without first reviewing the needs assessments of the Public Safety organizations and programs? It was noted that the information from the previous project proposal is available but that it needs to be reviewed to see what scope changes should be considered (response time, people, growth, etc.). Agenda items for the next meeting (or meetings) will include general or rough guidelines from Kaestle Boos for separate facilities vs. a co-located facility, a review of the needs assessment from the last proposal, and a review the last Committees site assessments (can also include the assessment David Ellis made and passed out at the November 25th meeting). It was noted that by the next meeting an assessment of the existing fire station for expansion possibilities will
be completed. It was also noted that renovation at times can be more expensive than demolition and completely rebuilding a site. Chairman Lucchesi and Chief Chandler (at the meeting January 4th with Kaestle Boos to start the assessment of the existing Fire Station) will request Kaestle Boos have this point in mind during the assessment of the Fire Station.
A general question was asked: How are programs developed? For the last proposal, Kaestle Boos used a model which incorporated elements of existing Public Safety programs in Holden, crime statistics, population growth projections, etc. and then came up with a square footage estimate. Further questions were asked: could such a proposal could be graduated from only replacing what is available today to one which includes increments projected to “last” 10 years, 20 years, etc.; what synergies exist in co-locating; how can the facilities be in separate locations for less expense; can a building be built with the opportunity to easily incorporate additions later; and can we take the last proposal and the needs assessment and cut back to get to a more affordable but smaller solution. From this discussion it was
agreed that reviewing the needs assessment is the first order of business prior to rigorously pursuing a site. Chairman Lucchesi will ask Kaestle Boos to send on to all Committee members an estimate of how much acreage single sites will need for separate Police and Fire Public Safety facilities as well as a combined facility and the past needs assessment documents.
10. Public Comment:
Mark Bibace asked if the Public Safety Building Project will be integrated with the proposed DPW Project. This Committee has decided not to pursue this course but focus on the needs of this project. The DPW project will be kept in mind as there is a tie between the Fire Department and the DPW.
Ben Woodbury made a statement to the Committee. The town of Holden has tried twice and failed to update Public Safety Facilities. The politics of the situation need to be addressed and resolved before an attempt to construct updated facilities will be successful. The questions involve include: Will 24 hour fire protection be provided to Holden residents; integration of the DPW into this project needs to be considered now not later otherwise if the DPW locates to the Northern Town line this project fails; when to build now or after schools are done, or the DPW is down, or more town debt is retired: 1 vs. 2 Public Safety Building may not be this Committees choice. A last caution was made. Do not sell on the basis of town need, it did not work before.
11. Adjournment:
A motion was made by Robert Beck to adjourn. Brian Forts seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 21:05.
| 
