Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
 
03/07/2007
Public Safety Building Committee
Meeting Minutes
March 7, 2007

6:30 PM           Holden Light Department

Present:  Peter Liddy, Christopher Lucchesi, David White, Bob Beck, Karl Makela,  Gene Stirchak

Absent:  Jack Chandler, George Sherrill, Mary Ryan, Hal Lane, Richard Bates, Brian Forts

Others Present: Michael McKeon and Peter Brooks (of Kaestle Boos), Melissa McKeon, David Ellis, Karen Green, Tony Seeley, Otto Lies, Sheila Bachant, Steve Dubrule, Ed Weathersbee, Gary Beuggemann, Andy Miller, Donald Ball

The points below begin with the title of the original agenda item.

Call to Order:

The meeting was called to order at 18:35.

Approval of previous meeting minutes (February 7, 2007):

A motion to approve the minutes of the February 7th meeting was made by Mr. White and seconded by Mr. Beck. The Committee approved the minutes unanimously. A question was raised if Ms. Arguin is placing the minutes once approved onto the town website; yes, the minutes are going on the web site. A request was also made to add Mr. McKeon and Mr. Brooks of Kaestle Boos to the distribution list for approved minutes.

A discussion ensued regarding the scheduled 2/21/2007 meeting that was not official due to the lack of a quorum. Mr. White strongly advised that there should be no discussion of substantive issues without a quorum. It was noted that any Committee member can bring up any point that was originally on the proposed agenda for the 2/21/2007 meeting for discussion at the next meeting as they see fit. It was established and the Chairman will enforce the no quorum no meeting tenet.

Public Comment:

Chairman Lucchesi noted that the Committee appreciated all comments 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.

Otto Lies: Mr. Lies noted that the Town Manager at a recent Town Meeting inquired after a review of combining the DPW with other Public Safety Buildings at one site. Mr. Lies was directed to recent minutes of this Committee as this topic was covered (this Committee will focus on the Public Safety Buildings and not consider the DPW in that work). Chairman Lucchesi also noted the Town Manager has been invited to attend a meeting of this Committee and the Town manager has indicated he will.

No further comments from the Public were offered.

Updates from the Chair:

Chairman Lucchesi has contacted the Town Manager and raised the following issues:

Inquired about the status of Damon House as to covenants and any other legal agreements with the Town affecting the Building;

Asked for an opinion or statement on the requirement (or not) of a Project Manager for this project at this time (the Committee currently understands that a Project Manager would be required once the Town has voted to fund a project and the project begins to prepare bids);

Requested that the Committees email address be added to the Committee’s portion of the Town’s web site;

Requested that the minutes of the Committee be circulated to Selectmen once the Committee has approved the minutes;

Inquired if any further discussion regarding the interaction between the DPW relocation and this Committees work was needed;

Requested any information regarding the sale of the Caswell King property that the Town Manager may have.

The Chairman had not had any response from the Town at the time of this meeting.

Chairman Lucchesi spoke with Dennis Lipka regarding the potential of he and his staff attending a Committee meeting to discuss potential growth areas in Town and what requirements for Public Safety services would result. In addition, the Chairman also spoke with Craig Stanovich (Chairman of the Planning Board) on the same subject. See further ahead in these minutes for more information.

The Chairman noted that he has submitted letters to the Telegram and Gazette plus The Landmark regarding progress made by the Committee. In the Landmark the letter should be printed this week (3/8/2007 edition) as a Speak Out Letter. For the T&G, Chairman Lucchesi had a lengthy discussion with Jean Hill of the T&G. A shorten version of the Letter in the Landmark should appear in an edition this Saturday or Sunday.

The Chairman noted he has received a letter from the Area Director offices of the Department of Agriculture with information regarding programs to assist towns with the financing of infrastructure project. These programs offer loans at or slightly below market rates for interest and also may allow payback over 40 years (note these programs are not grants). The Chairman indicated that he has forwarded this letter to the Town Manager as the Town, not this Committee, is involved in the financing of a Public Safety Building project. The Chairman further noted that this indicates there are creative financing packages that can be explored.

Mr. Makela noted that the property of the Damon House is part of the Historical District but that the House itself is not.

Site Selection / Evaluation:

A series of 3 matrices of potential sites assessed against 10 site characteristics (an eleventh, “Acceptability to Town (Voters)” was left blank as the Committee would have the responsibility to complete this assessment point) was prepared, at the request of the Chairman, for the Committee to react to. There was one matrix for a stand alone Police Facility, a second matrix for a stand alone Fire Facility, and a third matrix for a combine Fire & Police Facility. For each facility, each characteristic was assigned a number of 1 to 5 where 1 means less favorable, 5 more favorable to the proposed type of site. The matrix characteristics were:

usable land,

general location / geographical position,

traffic / impact / access,

topography, wetlands / watercourses affecting the site,

site dimensions,

potential revenue impact to the Town,

neighborhood impact,

predevelopment costs (acquisition, remediation, clearing), and

reuse of previously developed land.

A score was assigned by the architect/planner at Kaestle Boos based on programmed factors which are considered objective. Currently the matrix has no weighting outside the 1-5 rating but several scenarios are possible. In reviewing the matrices the Committee had a number of comments and questions.

Site 6 consists of the existing DPW site plus 2 other properties on the front street (currently small strip malls).

The existing Police Station was left on the stand alone Police Facility list for now.

Site 2 (existing Fire Station with adjacent residential parcel) is on all 3 matrices but is rated as 1 for a stand alone Police facility while rated as 5 for a stand alone Fire facility and combined facility. This may be due to how a stand alone Police facility would layout on the property but the rating needs to be checked. Mr. McKeon will check into the rating of site 2 the existing Fire Station for a stand alone Police facility (why only a 1?).

It was noted the combined facilities would require 2.8 acres for the facility, a stand alone Police facility 1.7, and a stand alone Fire facility 1.6.

Mr. Makela asked given the area needed for a stand alone Police facility, is the rating of 1 correct? The Damon House property is 1.39 acres alone but is bigger when the abutting property is included. Mr. McKeon will correct this rating.

A series of properties were quickly reviewed and eliminated for consideration as a site for a Police facility due to various reasons and are briefly stated here (a consolidated table at the end of this section, “Table 1: Properties Eliminated” summarizes the reasons why consideration of the properties were dropped). The Old Landfill Site (inappropriate), the Fairlane Site (too small) and the combined sites around Pine Tree Road and Bailey Road and Salisbury Road at Main Street (parcels not adjacent to each other) were all dropped by consensus of the Committee.

Mr. Makela suggested that the Holden Sand & Gravel Site (HSG) was not really acceptable as a site for a Police facility because a more visible presence of the Police Station in the center of Town was needed. Mr. Beck noted that this site is the only “mega” site remaining on the list (one which can accommodate either a combined or two stand alone facilities); not a favored site but the largest site. Chairman Lucchesi asked Mr. Lies (in his capacity as a member of the Planning Board) how big the new housing construction area at the HSG site is and how much area is left outside of this new housing development. Mr. Lies noted that the area that fronts onto Wachusett Street (about a third of the whole HSG site) remains outside the current construction area.

Mr. Beck proposed that the existing DPW site on Main Street (plus accessibility for fire equipment due to the train overpass on Main Street plus accessibility to the Salisbury Street area) and Chaffin Recreation Site (accessibility issues) be eliminated. Mr. Makela asked if the previous Public Safety Building Committee eliminated the existing DPW site for this reason. Mr. Ball of the Holden Police Department confirmed this. Mr. White also noted that the existing DPW site should be eliminated because of timing issues; if the DPW has not moved when construction of a Public Safety building is ready to begin, then the project is put on hold. Also, Mr. White noted with the State Police barracks at the corner of Main and Shrewsbury Street, all the visible Police presence in Holden would be at one end of Town. By consensus all of the sites discussed in this paragraph were dropped from further consideration.

Clarification of where the Bateman property is located was requested. It lies between the driveway for WRHS and Kendall Road and is comprised of 4 properties for a total of 155,000 square feet.

Mr. Makela proposed that the Existing Fire Station should be removed from consideration as a stand alone Police facility. Chairman Lucchesi requested that the Fire Station be kept on the list for consideration even as a stand alone Police facility because it has been vetted by Kaestle Boos as being “an asset to the Town” and it allows for flexibility in planning for a stand alone Police facility. Mr. Makela asked if the Committee should be considering the combined facilities option and that deciding separate or combined facilities is necessary now. Chairman Lucchesi noted that the existing Fire Station and adjacent residential properties is one of the few sites that either stand alone facilities or a combined facility are all viable options. It was noted by Kaestle Boos that structural reinforcement of the floor of the existing Fire Station would be needed if the building continues as a Fire Station. It is also reasonable to assume if the existing Fire Station were converted to a Police Station there would be either less or no need to invest in floor reinforcement. With this possible cost the existing Fire Station should remain an option for all 3 scenarios. Mr. Makela reminded the Committee that the Town has twice rejected a combined facility and at this site. Chairman Lucchesi rejoined that if a scenario where a combined facility is possible at a cost of $9,000,000, it has been stated the Town voters would likely approve. Mr. Makela repeated that there still is likely a Town prejudice against a combined facility. Mr. White inquired of the Mr. McKeon and Mr. Brooks as to a cost estimate to reinforce the floor in the existing Fire Station. Mr. McKeon agreed with Mr. Lucchesi that the cost if the facility were to be used as a Police facility would likely be nothing. Mr. McKeon also, with hesitation, guessed that reinforcing the floor for use in a re-modeled Fire Station would be between $100,000 and $250,000. It all depends on the use of the building and the load the floor would be expected to carry. Mr. Brooks reminded the Committee that other re-modeling would be needed: raising the rood over the existing garage space, new doors, additional space for offices, etc. Mr. McKeon also reminded the Committee that expenses for combined facility on the existing Fire Station site will rise due to the multiple levels of the building needed due to the property but a detailed analysis is needed to say with accuracy what the cost will be.

In conclusion, 4 sites remain in consideration for a stand alone Police facility: the existing Fire Station site with adjacent residential property, Damon House and abutting property, and Caswell King and abutting properties. See Table 2 Properties Remaining Under Consideration for details.

Consideration of sites for a Fire facility was now quickly undertaken. For reasons noted above the following sites were eliminated: existing DPW site, Old Landfill Site, Pine Tree Road and Bailey Road and Salisbury Road at Main Street, Chaffin Recreation, Existing Police Station, and the Fairlane Site. The Damon House and abutting properties as well as Caswell King and abutting properties were dropped from consideration as a stand alone Fire facility because they are too small to accommodate such a facility. The Bateman property was dropped from consideration as being too big for consideration for a stand alone facility. These latter proposals were accepted by consensus. This leaves the following sites under consideration for a stand alone Fire facility: the existing Fire Station site with adjacent residential property, the Creamer property, and Holden Sand & Gravel. See Table 2 Properties Remaining Under Consideration for details.

Consideration of sites for a Combined Fire and Police Station was quickly undertaken. For reasons noted above most of the sites were dropped from consideration (see Table 1). Four sites remained in consideration because the sites were large enough to hold a combined facility and possessed enough desirable qualities to merit further consideration: the existing Fire Station site with adjacent residential property, the Creamer property, the Bateman properties and Holden Sand & Gravel. See Table 2 Properties Remaining Under Consideration for details.



Table 1: Properties Eliminated

Site Number
Site
Facility dropped from consideration
Reason for Dropping
6
DPW Site and Comm. Site on Main Street
All 3
Remediation of the property costs; accessibility for fire equipment due to the train overpass on Main Street; accessibility to the Salisbury Street area; timing for construction of a public safety building waiting for construction of a new DPW site to finish; all the visible Police presence in Holden focused in one part of town.
10
Old Landfill Site
All 3
Inappropriate for a public safety facility
15
Pine Tree Road and Bailey Road and Salisbury Road at Main Street
All 3
Parcels are not close to each other to accommodate a public safety facility properly
21
Chaffin Recreation Association an adjacent residential property
All 3
Accessibility for fire equipment due to the train overpass on Main Street; accessibility to the Salisbury Street area
24
Existing Police Station
All 3
Building is too small and wetland restrictions prohibit any expansion of the structure.
25
Damon House and abutting property
Stand alone Fire facility and combined facility
Too small to accommodate their facilities
26
Caswell King and abutting property
Stand alone Fire facility and combined facility
Too small to accommodate their facilities
27
Bateman Properties
Stand alone Police and Fire facilities
Too big for stand alone facilities, waste of space
28
Fairlane Site
All 3
To small to hold even a stand alone facility.
29
Holden Sand and Gravel
Stand alone Police facility
Too big for this facility; not visible enough presence for Police Station in Town



Table 2: Properties Remaining Under Consideration
Site Number
Site
Facility under consideration
Strengths (weaknesses)
2
Existing Fire Station and Adjacent Residential Parcel
All 3
Building assessed as an asset to the Town by Kaestle Boos; flexibility of various possibilities for separate or combined facilities; fair visibility for Police presence; next to WRHS which is the biggest concentration of people in Holden during the week day
7
Creamer Property
All 3
Property owned by Town; large parcel; more rapid coverage for fire or emergency by greater numbers (middle of neighborhood questionable for noise; Highland Street narrow at this site)
25
Damon House and abutting property
Stand alone Police Facility
Cenr of Town, good visibility (part of historic district)
26
Caswell King and abutting properties
Stand alone Police Facility
Center of Town, good visibility
27
Bateman Properties
Combined Fire and Police facility
Big enough for this facility; fair visibility for Police presence; next to WRHS which is the biggest concentration of people in Holden during the week day
29
Holden Sand and Gravel
Stand alone Fire facility and combined facility
Big enough for these facilities (will be a slow response for fire equipment going to west side of Holden due to hill to climb on Highland Street)


Chairman Lucchesi noted the Committee is down to consideration of 6 sites. Are these the best sites to consider?

Mr. Beck noted he toured the Brewster Police Station. While there, it was suggested that he also go to the Dennis, MA station, which Mr. Beck did. The Brewster Police Station was built in 2000 at the cost of $4,000,000 for 22,000 square feet of floor space. The Dennis Police Station was built in 2007 at the cost of 8,000,000 for 23,000 square feet of floor space. The floor space in these facilities match what would be the space needed for a Police facility in Holden. The costs from Brewster and Dennis fits the 10% increase in costs per year model presented to the Committee at a previous Committee Meeting by Mr. Mitchell of Kaestle Boos (see minutes of the 2/7/2007 Committee Meeting). Mr. Beck presented this to support the idea that the existing Fire Station should be re-modeled and a new Police Station should be built. Mr. White contended that 22,000 square feet is larger than need be for a new Police facility in Holden, that 16,000 square feet would be more appropriate. This takes the cost for a new stand alone Police facility to around $5,000,000. Mr. Beck argued that the year round population of Dennis is at most 12,000. Mr. White reminded the Committee seasonal population fluctuations are very large there and account for the greater space requirements for Dennis than Holden would need. Mr. Beck discussed this with the Police Captain in Dennis who said use of the station is relatively equivalent year round (that is, no seasonal fluctuations are seen in usage of the Dennis Police facility). Mr. White believes this is not the case.

Mr. Ball of the Holden Police Department suggested to the Committee that if the plan is to have two stand alone facilities that the Fire Station should go first, then the Police facility should be decided.

Mr. Makela noted that the Creamer property is in a residential area where a Fire Station with the attending noise would be a poor fit while a Police Station, which is quieter, would be a better fit. Mr. White proposed that the Committee commence to complete the rating of the 6 properties for “Acceptability to Town (Voters):” even without the clarifications requested in the Kaestle Boos ratings for the eleven other “objective” categories. Mr. Beck reminded the Committee that Creamer property has an advantage over the existing Fire Station site in that it is closer to a larger number of homes (estimated at 1200-1500 valued at $200,000,000). Even with effects to the neighborhood of placing a station there, a Fire Station at the Creamer property would cover a greater portion of the Town more quickly, with more equipment, than the existing Fire Station site. Mr. White thought this an inflammatory way of presenting the case for the Creamer property by noting in most cases the response time difference between the Creamer property and the existing Fire Station site would be 1.5 minutes (which is very minor). Also, the Creamer property while providing a more rapid response to some of the population in Holden would still leave out certain other areas from enhanced coverage. On that basis the difference between the two sites are minimal. Mr. Beck noted that the Holden Fire Department is based on volunteers, and that a greater number of volunteers live closer to the Creamer property than the existing fire station. More volunteers to the station more quickly gets more equipment to an emergency no matter where the emergency. Mr. White noted that there is coverage provided to the Town by 2 personnel up to midnight and that this gets a truck on the road immediately. Mr. Beck answered that volunteers are still needed, that 8-10 volunteers are less than 2 minutes from the Creamer property, and that the advantage of the Creamer property stated above stands. A faster response with more hands is possible from the Creamer property than from the existing Fire Station. Mr. White countered that the current roster of volunteers will not be the roster of volunteers in a few years so that the current advantage may not be an advantage in those few years. Mr. White stated that the current site has served the Town well in all the emergencies. Mr. Beck also noted that fires are a type of emergency that is growing fewer in number while medical emergencies and responses to hazardous materials accidents are growing.

Chairman Lucchesi noted that a number of good issues were raised in how the Fire Department reacts to emergencies and how they respond; the same applies for the Police Department. However, the conversation needs to end at this point. Chairman Lucchesi charged the Committee with considering each site for the scenarios proposed for the site and come with a rating for acceptability to the Town at the next meeting.

Chairman Lucchesi raised the question if the list of the 6 sites should be shared with the Board of Selectman at this time. Mr. Liddy urged waiting until the absent Committee Members had a chance to review the list. Mr. McKeon noted that Kaestle Boos can quickly correct the ratings in question on the candidate site rating list and distribute to the Committee. It was decided to wait on sharing the list. Mr. White also requested that the minutes contain the reasons why sites were dropped from consideration.

New Business

Dissemination of Information

Chairman Lucchesi noted that the letters had been sent to the two local newspapers for publication (see Updates from the Chair section above).

Future Agenda Items:

Chairman Lucchesi requested that any items be brought up with him regarding new agenda items for future meetings.

Police/Fire Program Needs Assessment

Chairman Lucchesi noted that the Fire and Police Needs Assessments should be ready for review at the next Committee meeting. Mr. White cautioned the Committee that the assessments are best case scenarios, which the Committee has the responsibility to review the assessments and determine what the Town can provide. Everything in the Needs Assessments is not necessarily going to be provided. Chairman Lucchesi recognized the point.

“Green” Buildings

Chairman Lucchesi asked the Committee if anyone knows of funding sources to help in the building of public facilities to come forward at anytime. Mr. McKeon noted that this aspect is a moving target because sources of funding for “green” buildings are constantly changing. Mr. White noted that the WRHS remodeling project were trying to get extra funds based like this but that the additional work can be extensive.

Next Meeting March 21st

Chairman Lucchesi had originally intended this meeting to be at one of the existing public safety facilities but that this was not arranged and so the meeting will be at the Light Department. The Chairman also reminded everyone that there will be meetings at the existing public safety facilities to remind us all of the reason this Committee has the project before it.

Planning Board Agenda

Chairman Lucchesi noted that trying to get the Planning Board (lead by Craig Stanovich) into a joint meeting with this Committee was proving to be very difficult. Chairman Lucchesi suggested 2 or at most 3 of members of this Committee attend a Planning Board meeting, ask questions about foreseen growth in Holden and bring a report back (general trends only, no specific aspects) to the Committee. The proposal was accepted. Chairman Lucchesi, Mr. Beck and Mr. White volunteered to go. Mr. Makela reminded Chairman Lucchesi to be sure and call Pam Harding to get onto the Planning Board agenda. Chairman Lucchesi noted the next meeting is Tuesday March 13 at Town Hall at 7:30.

Visitations

The Chiefs are putting together a calendar of dates for visits to other public safety facilities. Committee members can choose between dates so that everyone can participate. Facilities will include those that are combined, stand alone, favorable design, less favorable, etc. For those that go a report back to the Committee with notes of what was seen will be desirable. It was suggested that all visits will be posted as potential meetings since if 5 or more Committee members go to any one site this is considered a meeting.

Public Comment:

Otto Lies: First, Mr. Lies commended the Committee on the style of the meeting. Mr. Lies noted he lives on Salisbury Street and wants to ensure the following information is available to the Committee. First, Salisbury Street will be a site of major growth in Holden. Mr. Lies quantified this by saying by 2010 (about the time a Public Safety Building, if approved in 2007 by voters, would be coming on line) there will be over 1000 new residents in this area over those present today. Projects include 20-25 houses on Winter Hill Road (with 70 more to follow), 246 unit in the Sandine project (around 600-800 people), 100 houses in Westminster Estates off Newell Road, 100 units starting construction on Fisher Road. Also, there is 100 acres between Salisbury Street and the Howard property on Chapin Road. Mr. Lies also noted that access to this area will be along only a few streets. Last, Mr. Lies noted that possibly or probably by law public buildings in Massachusetts will be required to be green. Mr. Lies suggested that Central Massachusetts Regional Planning Committee (CMRPC) would be the organization to contact regarding this issue.

Karen Green: Ms. Green noted that a public safety building in accordance with the flavor of the downtown on the Fairlane site would be an enhancement to the area. Ms. Green suggested to the Committee that before seriously pursuing the Damon House Property the Committee should consider that this is the only green space in the area and would be a poor choice given other alternatives in the area.

Ed Weathersbee: Mr. Weathersbee noted that no one mentioned this evening that WRHS has 2000 people daily at the school. Placing the Police and Fire facilities on Main Street in proximity to the school is a good idea.

David Ellis: Mr. Ellis noted several points. The farther north on Main Street the Fire facility is placed increases the time it will take to respond to emergencies in the rest of the Town. Holden Sand and Gravel is away from the center of Town and that coming up the hill on Highland Street towards Main Street would be very slow for a fully loaded truck responding to a fire emergency; this is a poor choice for the Fire facility. The architects have made the point that the present Fire Station is built in a way that the lower level is a “bunker” and would provide good protection to a communication center for Public Safety organizations in Town. Also, if the existing Fire Station is turned into a Police Station, the “bunker” site would be a good place for holding cells. Mr. Ellis noted that while the statement made earlier in the meeting that there are fewer fire emergencies but more medical emergencies is true, the potential for a serious fire emergency is present. Lastly, Mr. Ellis reminded the Committee that there is a new, large development going in at the Holden Sand and Gravel site which will need to be considered.

Donald Ball: Mr. Ball (please note Mr. Ball is a Lieutenant in the Holden Police Department) advised the Committee that in his capacity with the Holden Police Department he was sent to a meeting discussing the building of Police facilities. Mistakes made by other municipalities were reviewed to learn from them. Mr. Ball noted that train tracks are a serious issue as these carry large quantities of hazardous materials and derailments cause huge safety and evacuation issues, especially any facility where 911 response equipment or offices are located. For Holden, the tracks are adjacent to the current Fire Station. In investigating what is carried on the tracks behind the existing Fire Station, the worst case scenario would be a derailment of a chlorine tanker care in this area. This requires a 3000 foot evacuation zone with multiple days for cleaning up the derailment before it would be safe to return. This needs to be considered in site selection for Holden Public Safety buildings.

Chairman Lucchesi thanked all members of the public who spoke and noted these comments will be considered by the Committee.

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 21:10.