Public Safety Building Committee
Meeting Minutes
January 17, 2007
6:30 PM Holden Light Department
Present: Peter Liddy, Christopher Lucchesi, addressStreetHal Lane, Bob Beck, Karl Makela, Jack Chandler, George Sherrill, David White, Richard Bates, Mary Ryan, Gene Stirchak
Absent: Brian Forts
Others Present: David Ellis, Ed Stark, Mark Bibace, Otto Lies
The points below begin with the title of the original agenda item.
Call to Order:
The meeting was called to order at 18:38. It was noted that a new Committee Member has joined the Public Safety Building Committee. Mary Ryan was introduced and welcomed.
Approval of previous meeting minutes (January 3, 2007):
No comments were offered to the minutes of the January 3, 2007 meeting. Acceptance of the minutes was moved by David White and seconded by Karl Makela. The minutes were accepted by a vote of 6 to 0 with 1 abstention (one Committee Member had not yet arrived at the meeting).
Public Comment:
Ed Stark, former Fire Chief of Holden noted that to date a Construction Manager for this project has not been named or discussed. Mr. Stark believed that a Construction Manager is required by Massachusetts state law and would in any case have been of help to the committee in selecting an architect for the project. A project manager would help in backing up the architect on design issues but would also be service in watching for opportunities for cost savings in both the design and building phases. A Committee Member requested Mr. Stark to name the statue cited above. Mr. Stark believe the statue will be found in the Massachusetts general laws and also noted that these had changed within the last two years to require the hiring of a project manager and that the usual cost of a project manager was 2-3% of total
project costs.
Mr. David Ellis noted that he had provided the Committee an annotated list of sites to consider and that another site, the lot across from Gale Free Library and behind the Damon Memorial House should be added to that list.
Updates from the Chair:
Finance Committee (1/10/07): Paul Challenger invited Mr. Lucchesi as Chair of this Committee to speak to the Finance Committee at the January 10, 2007 meeting regarding the Public Safety Building Project Warrant Article for the January 29, 2007 Town Meeting. Committee Members White, Bates, Chandler and Sherrill were present during the presentation. The Finance Committee was informed of progress the PSB Committee has made and the purpose of the requested project funding. The Finance Committee had questions regarding the use of information developed by the previous PSB Committees. Chairman Lucchesi did express the Committees commitment to leverage all existing information and to not duplicate what already exists. The Finance Committee voted to 6 to 0 with one abstention to support the Warrant Article for providing funds to
this Committee.
Select Board Meeting (1/16/07): Chairman Lucchesi made the presentation to the Select Board on the 16th and can be viewed on Holden Public Television. It was noted that the requested $5,000 for the Committee itself must be fully explained as to the use of these monies. The money can and will not be used for advocacy of any plans and proposals from the Committee rather it will be used for dissemination of information of Committee progress and proposals so that the Public has full access to information regarding this project.
Meeting Schedule Adjustment: Charles Boos has requested that the dates of Committee Meetings be moved from the first and third Wednesdays of the month as he has a conflict. Should this not be possible, there is an option to pass the project responsibility on to the Kaestle Boos office in Foxboro. Chairman Lucchesi noted that in polling Committee Members the current schedule remains the best fit with Member’s schedules. Chairman Lucchesi also wanted to hear what Committee Members thought of going to a weekly schedule of meetings on Wednesdays, recognizing that many members may only be able to attend alternating meetings. Mr. White believed weekly meetings where people would miss meetings was a poor choice. Mr. White also noted that Mr. Boos had stated he was committed to the project and knew of the meeting schedule.
If necessary, moving back to an RFP from other architects is available to the Committee. There was general agreement by committee members on these points. (An aside: The Committee requested a copy of the Flame Study from Kaestle Boos provided to the town. Kaestle Boos has to go through all the various revisions originally prepared to find the final version. Chairman Lucchesi is also looking through past Committee’s records for the presentation that was made to the Town in May 2006 as it contains the information from the Flame Study. Chairman Lucchesi is meeting with the past chairman of this committee and will ask for the presentation as well.) It was noted that the time conflict for Mr. Boos goes out through the fall. While it was suggested that if the Committee is reviewing past data against new criteria that the architect presence may not be necessary the Committee Members agreed that the architect is design responsible and is necessary to assess options as the
Committee directs. Chief Sherrill also noted that Kaestle Boos assigned another architect, not Mr. Boos, as lead to the project. The Committee agreed that if another architect from Kaestle Boos is assigned to this project that architect would need to remain with the project right through the design, planning and building stages. It was noted that should this occur, the contract with Kaestle Boos, which states Mr. Boos is the contact architect, would have to be changed. It was noted that Kaestle Boos’ strength is not in fire station design and that Kaestle Boos would employ a contract design architect to assist in that aspect of the project. Chief Chandler confirmed this.
Chairman Lucchesi proposed that he will speak with Mr. Boos and state the Committee can not change the current schedule of Project Meetings; that the Committee understands the issues of his personal commitments and is willing to have Mr. Boos continue as Principle to the project and that another architect from Kaestle Boos be assigned as lead architect. The Committee agreed to this approach. Chairman Lucchesi will approach Mr. Boos with this proposal.
A question was asked about the status of the contract with Kaestle Boos as the contract will need to be modified if this proposal is the way the project proceeds. Chairman Lucchesi asked Chiefs Sherrill and Chandler to check into where the contract currently sits and ask that it be put on hold until Chairman Lucchesi speaks with Mr. Boos. The chiefs believe the contract was with Town Council for review, The Chiefs also confirmed they would request a hold be placed on the contract until this issue is resolved.
Fire Department Structural Analysis: A question was asked as to the status of the structural report on the existing fire station that was requested from Kaestle Boos. Chief Chandler noted that Mr. Boos did come and inspect the station on the 4th of February and that two follow up calls for additional information have been made. Preliminarily, Mr. Boos has stated it appears options exist to work with the current fire station and that the site should remain on the list as a possible option. The formal structural analysis is being prepared. A discussion of pressing Kaestle Boos to deliver the report as soon as possible ensued. It was noted that this piece of information is key to options before the Committee. It was also noted that a structural analysis does take time and that the analysis in the report needs to be correct
and not rushed. It was agreed that the report needs to be in the Committees hands by the next Committee at the latest.
Committee Mission Statement Development:
The Committee went through suggestions of what a Committee mission statement needs to contain. The suggestions from Committee Members were summarized by Chairman Lucchesi as:
Collaboration; partnership.
Sensitive or awareness to cost – cost effective
Establish an end date as a goal
Provide services to the public
Provide the needed tools and facilities to the Public Safety professionals
The question was asked: how is this statement intended to be used? It was agreed that the statement is intended to be used with the public as a statement of the Committee’s purpose and not a fluffy mission statement. The next attempt read:
“Design and build public safety facilities which meets professionals and public needs in a cost effective manner considering current and future needs.”
A discussion of sensitivity to both provision of services to the public and to cost emphasized both points and made the point that building on the cheap is not cost effective (Chief Sherrill reminded the Committee that when the current Police Station was constructed, neither air conditioning or window screens were included and the following year the state required the inclusion of air conditioning for detainees which cost the Town more than the original cost).
A revision of the mission statement read:
“The mission of the Public Safety Building Committee is to provide a cost effective solution to the Public Safety needs of the Holden Community.”
A motion to accept this statement as the Committee’s mission statement was made by Robert Beck and seconded by Karl Makela. The Committee voted unanimously to accept this statement as the Committee’s mission statement.
Facility Site Selection Discussion / List Compilation
A review was initiated of potential sites for public safety buildings. Chairman Lucchesi again stated that Mr. Boos stated that the existing Fire Station should not be ruled out from further consideration pending the structural analysis of the fire station and reviews of the options before the committee. Mr. White reminded the Committee of the map he distributed showing what restrictions were placed on building at the existing police station site because of environmental constraints. Mr. White noted the analysis was done at the Town’s request by an engineering firm hired by the town.
Mr. Boos was asked if the Caswell King property was something to be looked at. Mr. Boos said any option the Committee wishes to review is open and should be considered by the Committee along with all other options. Mr. Boos also noted that he had upon a short visual inspection of Holden Sand and Gravel a concern with potential contamination issues that would require in depth analysis.
Mr. Beck prepared for the Committee a presentation based on lists provided by, among others, Chief Chandler (the list was circulated at this meeting) and showing maps and satellite images of the Holden. From the map it was noted that much of the area in Holden is permanently restricted land that cannot be considered. With that a review of sites began. The notes below capture at least some of the comments made during the meeting.
Damon House and property: This is approximately 2.5 acres with Damon House at the corner of Main and Wachusett Streets. The property is within Holden Historical District. A question was asked in Damon House has either historical building status or is restricted by codicils placed on the structure when Holden acquired the property. These questions were not answered at the meeting. It was noted that the size of the property would be sufficient for a police station only. It was further noted that with traffic that occurs at the intersection of Main and Wachusett Streets (Highways 122A and 31) would not be acceptable for rapid egress needed for fire equipment.
Caswell King (1147 Main Street): The size of the property according to the Town Assessors database is 0.9 acres. It was noted that the Caswell King property and the adjoining two to the south are under agreement. Again, the size of the property (even with all three lots combined) precludes a joint facility being built here and is acceptable only for a police facility. The existing structure has 4,000 sq. ft. of room on the first floor and 200 sq. ft. on the second floor. There is sufficient paring at this site. It was asked if the layout of the building would be acceptable for the work flow seen in a police station; this question will need to be addressed by the architect.
Holden Hospital site: The site would require extensive and costly grading and excavation to be useful.
The old Village Repair Station: The ground behind the station is ledge and would be very costly to excavate.
Land behind Talbots: Should be considered
Property at Bailey and Main Street: Grade issues exist.
Malden and Main Streets: This is all DCR land with wet land restrictions.
Holden Sand and Gravel: Development of the upper portion of the property is underway. The lower portion is possible but has also been mentioned as a possible new DPW site. Having a satellite fire station at this site would address some of the response time issues further up Highway 31 and should be kept in mind.
Kreamer Property (Currently housing the Holden Recreation Department): This property is owned by the town and comprises approximately 6 acres. The soil conditions are very good for building on, being mostly glacial till and little if any ledge. This property is large enough to hold a joint fire and police station. A preliminary response time analysis indicates that with a satellite fire station in the Chaffin area, the time for response would be roughly equivalent to the current situation. That same preliminary analysis also indicated that the amount of equipment that would respond to a major fire would be greater from the Kreamer property as from the current situation. The main factor in improving response time would be a greater number of volunteer firemen live closer to the Kreamer property than to the existing main
fire station. There are several detractors to the Kreamer property. The property is in the middle of a residential neighborhood and the noise of responses to fire calls would be disruptive. Also, Highland Street (Highway 31) at this site is narrow and egress would be slow to navigate the larger trucks onto the road. Also, if the DPW moves to the Holden Sand and Gravel site, the current situation of having a satellite fire fighting presence at the DPW is not an effective disposition of fire fighting resources. It was also noted that the Kreamer property may not be optimal for supporting the foreseen building of homes that will be occurring on Salisbury Street. Lastly, the current fire station is next to the High School which is not an optimal situation. The Kreamer property is next to Davis Hill.
The committee thanked Mr. Beck for the considerable work that went into the presentation of various sites.
A further discussion was initiated to explore option with the current Fire Station. A scenario was presented by Mr. White of how salvaging the primary existing station and adding space could create a fire station which meets the needs of both the Fire Department and the Ambulance Crew. In the first of two phases a two story addition would be built at the back of the existing fire station structure. The upper floor would be level with the upper level of the existing structure and would house office space and needed facilities not currently available. The lower floor would have bays for storage of equipment and would serve as the garage space for the fire engines during the second phase of construction. The second phase, to begin after completion of the first phase, would involve building additional bay space on the
southeast side of the current structure for the ambulances. The roof over the existing bays would be raised to accommodate the larger, taller equipment now in use. A peaked rood would then be built over the existing bays and the newly added ambulance bay. It was noted that the structural analysis is definitely needed before the Committee goes further down this path; the floor in the existing fire station has had re-enforcement in the past. It was also noted that assuming the structural integrity support this plan, the building also needs to be such that it will accommodate newer, perhaps larger equipment that may be required in the next 10-15 years plus the growth that is forecasted to occur in the same time frame. This option is on the table until a structural report is made by Kaestle and Boos.
Recurring Business Discussions:
Dissemination of information to citizens: This item was passed over due to the extended discussion of potential sites.
New Business:
Project vs. Construction Manager: Mr. White pointed out that Massachusett’s state law requires a project manager not a construction manager unless the building is a school building. A Project Manager will be needed once the Committee has endorsement from the Town to build and the solicitation of bids is ready to commence. It was generally agreed that the current focus of this Committee should be on site selection and general planning for the Public Safety Buildings in Holden; other issues will tend to lead the Committee off on a tangent.
Project “Road Map”: Chairman Lucchesi asked for comments from the Committee on what they see as the elements of plan are to first get to select a site with a basic facility(s) approach agreed upon and approved by the Town and then on to full design and building of the Public Safety facilities. In general, it was agreed that the Committee proposes potential sites to the architect and the architect provides detailed analysis with probable consequences back to the Committee. The Committee is then responsible for site selection. The vast majority of the detailed work goes to the architect. At the next meeting, the Committee should be ready to give Kaestle Boos a list of sites for analysis and should expect a list back of the sites with pros and cons. Lastly, it was again strongly put that the structural analysis
of the current fire station is needed.
Public Comment:
Mr. David Ellis noted that the Kreamer property is a level lot, that utilities are present at the site and that this site puts trucks closer to the part of Holden where there is no water line available. Mr. Ellis also suggested that the Committee recommend to the Town to buy land in the addressStreetSalisbury Street area in anticipation of needing a fire station in that area in the future.
Mr. Otto Lies noted that as he is a member of the Planning Board for Holden, he is aware that there are a number of building plans and proposals in various stages of fruition. This Committee should be aware of these plans to better understand what the need for public services will look like in the coming years.
Mr. Lucchesi thanked both Mr. Ellis and Mr. Lies for their comments.
Adjournment:
A motion was made by Mr. Bates to adjourn. Mr. Beck seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 20:55.
| 
