Public Safety Building Committee
Meeting Minutes
July 18, 2007
6:30 PM Holden Municipal Light Department
Present: Christopher Lucchesi, Richard Bates, Robert Beck, Brian Forts, Karl Makela, Mary Ryan, David White, George Sherrill, Jack Chandler, Mike McKeon of K/B.
Call to Order:
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Lucchesi @ 6:30.
Public Comment:
Chair breifly discussed the Bateman property and stated that the Committee has reached out to gauge interest owners may have in selling, and asked if they wished to address the Committee first. Not at this time.
Otto Lies, 564 Salisbury Street addressed the Committee. He stated that he has attended several meetings and has been impressed with the quality of the Committee members; however, he feels that the Committee has become bogged down. Mr. Lies reminded the Committee that the two prior plans had been voted down and feels that the Committee must get the third plan under control. Mr. Lies stated that the needs of both public safety departments have been clearly demonstrated. Mr. Lies also believes that some of the personal interests of the Committee members were coming into play and urged the Committee to adopt a team concept. Mr. Lies called attention to Chief Sherrill's assertion that the Police Department is open 365 days/year. Mr. Lies did not believe that the Recreation Department
parking on Salisbury Street should not be considered. Mr. Lies further stated that the Committee should not limit itself to one proposal, but should consider bring forth more than one to the ballot box for vote. Mr. Lies believes that the respective chiefs should be listened to and should be asked the following: Is this what you want? 2) Is this where you want it?
With respect to the Bateman property, Mr. Lies believes that the Committee should not vote to take private homes as that would bog down the project. He also felt that the rights of the homeowners should be respected. Mr. Lies finished by urging the Committee to become a team once again and urged that project must succeed, but at a cost and at a location that is acceptable to the town's people.
Committee Discussion:
Bateman property discussion: Chair read letters sent to the individual property owners at Kendall Street and Main Street, as well as e-mail responses from some of the owner's addresses to Town Manager Bullock, and forwarded to the Committee.
Brian Forts was concerned with the additional cost of the project if the property were taken by the town and reminded the Committee that the fallout from the prior projects was the scope and cost.
Motion made by Richard Bates to remove the property from further consideration for the public safety building project. Seconded by Karl Makela. Vote to accept the motion was unanimous.
Salisbury Street property discussion:
Chris Lucchesi has not heard of any progress from the Town Manager regarding the property. Chris is drafting a letter to the state delegation and Governor's office. Chief Sherrill informed the Committee that he spoke with Lt. Governor Murray regarding the acquisition of the property and was advised to speak with the Lt. Governor's Chief of Staff. Chris stated that the state delegation and Congressman McGovern are all supportive.
Committee Discussion:
Mike McKeon informed the Committee that test borings revealed that some of the material that was dumped on the existing Fire Department site is unsuitable and may have to be removed and replaced. He doesn't believe there is a problem with the existing building as it has stood the test of time. The unsuitable soil appears to be outside the footprint. Review of past projects reveals a site development cost of between $1.1 and $1.5 million dollars. Mike reviewed new cost estimates. Site costs are preliminary and do not reflect how much unsuitable material will have to be removed. Mike termed it an academic exercise at best until the actual site is determined.
Chris Lucchesi addressed the Committee and believes that the committee is getting bogged down in an analysis of site v. cost estimates exercise. Mike McKeon believes that it isn't hopeless, and has a plan for the Salisbury St. site if the Committee so chooses. David White believes that the Committee may be forced to look at the existing fire department site and believes the Committee is merely taking a cavalier look at the viability of the Salisbury St. site.
Bob Beck believes that the existing site has a lot of strings attached to it; however, if the Committee were to re-visit this site, it would be validating the work of the previous committees. If this is the case, the Committee should get busy doing so.
Karl Makela doesn't think the existing fire department site will fly. Brian Forts believes that it is the price tag that is dispositive of the issue and that the Committee is dragging its feet. Rick Bates disagreed and stated that the believed that the Committee was working very diligently through a very difficult issue.
Chris believes that the Committee should not back into the building via the dollars to be expended. Chief Sherrill does not want to see the Committee take a band-aid approach to the project. Brian believes that we are setting ourselves up for failure. Mary Ryan would like the chiefs to look at the plans and see if there are any areas that can be cut. Karl stated that the probability of satellite for the fire Department means that the plans do not have to be too large to accommodate the department. Jack Chandler asserted that the headquarters facility has certain fixed space that is needed and is concerned that if it reduced too much, it will be too small upon occupancy.
Brian stated that the price tag increases every time we move the project forward. Chris wondered if the Committee supported a building which did not meet the needs of the two departments, would the project be rejected? Karl believed that by proposing different proposals, the Committee could gauge the public support and educate the public. Dave reminded the Committee that the prior projects passed at town meetings, but were rejected at the ballot box and surmised that the reason is simply the size of the prior projects. Bob termed Dave's discussion logical, but disagreed that the size was the reason for the rejection. People need to realize that fire apparatus has become quite larger than in the past, the town has grown considerably, and does not wish to squeeze professional space to a degree
that they are not functional.
Mary believes that the Committee needs to re-visit the plans and them commit to selling the project to the public; however, the Committee must make a sincere effort to reduce the size. Mike McKeon doesn't believe that the size can be reduced considerably. More than 5% and you sacrifice size/quality of spaces.
Motion by Dave White to concentrate solely on the existing fire department site. Seconded by Bob Beck. Rick inquired about the Salisbury St. site study. Mike stated that he had it prepared but not prepared to discuss it at this meeting and agreed that the logic was strong for a combined facility.
Mike McKeon stated his belief that it was fiscally logical to propose a combined facility.
Karl discussed the renovation of the existing facilities. Mike McKeon stated the prior study addressed this and was inefficient via existing floor plan and the high cost to reinforce the floors, as well as relocation costs. Karl requested detailed costs at the next meeting.
New Business:
Holden Days: Discussion regarding dissemination of information about the project. Chris requested the Committee members send comments to him of what they would like disseminated at Holden Days. Chris stated he would summarize the work so far. Brian asked what the message was that should be conveyed and thought the costs should be discussed. Karl believed that the public should be presented with alternative plans, with their respective costs. Dave thought this would not be productive, as this would lead the public to the least costly alternative. Brian felt that the design would drive the cost of the project. Bob felt that inflation was eating away at the project footprint and that inertia is costing the town money and the delay has ostensibly taken away 50000 sq. ft... Bob
believes that there is almost unanimous consensus in town that we need to do something to address the public safety needs, but he does not believe that we have enough to present at Holden Days, and therefore urged members not to attend in their official capacity. Chief Sherrill stated that based upon a state-wide analysis; we were right where we should be in relation to the size of the community.
A sub-committee, or ad-hoc committee, was proposed to meet with the chiefs and Mike McKeon to discuss and better understand the needs. Brian, Karl and Dave volunteered, but with the caveat that the meetings must be posted as public meetings.
Karl discussed the possibility of obtaining a new architect. This was opposed by several members, who believed that the current firm, Kaestle Boos was doing a fine job and was very accommodating.
Chief Sherrill discussed a state grant that he had applied for to purchase equipment.
Public Comment:
Louise Hugo stated that she was still interested in the Caswell King property and believed the town should take it by eminent domain, and therefore, begin to take back the town.
Mark Lambert thanked the committee for their compassion with regard to the Bateman/Kendall Rd. property. He stated his belief that the public safety needs are real, even in light of the investment in other projects in town. He was unsure if the voters were aware of the condition of the existing facilities and believed that it would be a disservice to the town to propose a facility that was inadequate.
Gene Sirchak felt that the committee should talk about the constraints under which the committee is working under at Holden Days and sell the necessities of the respective departments.
Lt. Donald Ball of the Holden Police Department discussed the history of the police department and how he has seen the department outgrow two facilities, the Damon House, and the existing building. He felt that this should not happen with this project, even if it means addressing one department at a time.
Approved: February 6, 2008
| 
