Public Safety Building Committee
Meeting Minutes
March 21, 2007
6:30 PM Holden Light Department
Present: Christopher Lucchesi, Mary Ryan, Hal Lane, Bob Beck, Karl Makela,
Brian Forts, Jack Chandler, George Sherrill, Gene Stirchak
Absent: Peter Liddy, Richard Bates, David White
Others Present: Michael McKeon and Peter Brooks (of Kaestle Boos),
Melissa McKeon, David Ellis, Ed Weathersbee, Karen Green, Andy Miller, Otto Lies
The points below begin with the title of the original agenda item.
1. Call to Order:
The meeting was called to order at 18:40. It was noted that a number of the Committee members attending tonight were not at the last Committee meeting and that while there was a quorum at the last Committee meeting, any of the discussion from that meeting will be repeated in order to ensure all Committee members have heard and understand the content of the discussions and to be able to disagree with any decisions that were made if applicable.
2. Approval of previous meeting minutes (March 7, 2007):
A motion to approve the minutes of the March 7th meeting was made by Mr. Beck and seconded by Mr. Makela. The Committee approved the minutes with 3 votes for and 3 abstentions (the three Committee members not present at the last meeting).
3. 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.
There were no comments offered from the Public at this time.
4. Updates from the Chair:
Planning Board: Chairman Lucchesi noted that an item was added to the Planning Board’s agenda for the meeting of March 27th (8 PM) to discuss the Planning Board’s understanding of coming growth in Holden and how that might affect this Committee’s thinking on sites for a Police Station and a Fire Station. This will not be a joint meeting and specifics will not be discussed regarding this project but rather to gather information on what the future might hold. Dennis Lipka and Pam Harding will also be at the Planning Board meeting.
Town Manager Discussions: Mr. Bullock has been heavily involved in establishing the Town’s budget for 2008 so Chairman Lucchesi and Mr. Bullock have yet to speak. Once the budgeting process has reached a lull, they will touch base.
5. Site Selection / Evaluation:
Chairman Lucchesi described the process by which Kaestle Boos presented to the Committee 3 matrices of sites for a stand alone Police Station, a stand alone Fire Station and a combined facility in which the sites were compared in 10 different aspects considered key in evaluating sites for Public Safety Buildings. The ratings in these categories were based on the professional opinions of Kaestle Boos staff. These matrices were used to make a first pass selection of certain sites over others. Mr. McKeon noted that all items questioned at the last meeting have been corrected. Chairman Lucchesi stated that all sites are still on the list until all Committee members who missed the 7 March 2007 meeting had a chance to voice their opinions on all the sites. Several questions ensued.
Mr. Makela: Why does the entry for site #2 read “Existing Fire Station and Adjacent Residential Parcel”? Chairman Lucchesi noted that for a combined facility the parcel on which the existing Fire Station sits is too small and the next door residential parcel (once offered to the Town for purchase) would be needed. Mr. McKeon noted the stand alone facilities would not need the residential parcel.
Chairman Lucchesi noted that at the last meeting the Committee went through the lists and came up with 6 properties standing above the rest. In the time since that meeting, the convenience store on the Fairlane property moved to the old Applejax store. The Fairlane property alone was found to be too small for further consideration but since it is now vacant, and if combined with the property next to it to the south-east, the parcel would now measure 1.6 acres. Should this be re-considered as one of the highly rated sites? Mr. Forts said the cost of purchasing the property and loss of tax revenue will not sit well with Town voters. Chairman Lucchesi noted that while on Main Street and a new building would be desirable, the cost can not be ignored and it does affect how well the Town would accept such a
proposal.
Mr. Lane noted that Holden Sand and Gravel as a site would not be advantageous based on cost of the property either. This argument also holds for the Caswell King and adjacent properties (plus the lost tax revenue of having Walgreens on this site).
Chairman Lucchesi agreed with these statements and noted last meetings exercise was to eliminate the weaker properties. The question before the Committee members present is can we accept the decisions of the last meeting where 6 properties were noted as the properties to focus on or should the Committee present tonight go back through the entire list to review in depth the points raised about each site. There was a consensus of all members present to accept the list of 6 properties for further consideration.
Mr. Forts made a motion to reduce the lists of properties to be considered to the 6 noted from the last meeting (the existing Fire Station site with or without the adjacent residential property, the Creamer property, Holden Sand & Gravel, the Bateman properties, Damon House and abutting property, and Caswell King and abutting properties). The motion was seconded by Mr. Beck. The Committee voted unanimously to accept the motion.
The intention was to begin a review of the 6 remaining sites but Mr. Lane suggested a motion to decide whether to proceed with the assumption that a combined facility or separate Police and Fire facilities would be proposed to the Town. Mr. Lane argued that there is no good site for a combined Police Fire facility in Holden, that neither the Police or Fire departments have found strong reasons to pursue a combined facility, and that no great advantage to a combined facility is apparent. Chief Chandler noted there are certain cost advantages to a combined facility which the Committee needs to consider (share infrastructure for example) plus some soft advantages to the departments but that the need to buy land off sets the 10-15% savings a combined facility would provide. Chief Sherrill concurred. Mr. Lane also echoed
thoughts from Mr. Liddy that building one facility new while renovating a second to a modest is most acceptable, especially in consideration that the DPW will be going to the voters for new facilities in a short period of time. Mr. Lane stated that while renovating the existing Fire Station would be a stopgap at best, the DPW will affect the Town’s willingness to fund two new public safety facilities at one time. Mr. Lane believed that building a new police station while renovating the fire station now and then later coming back to the town for a new fire facility would get the Town two good facilities. Mr. Beck noted that Brewster attempted to go this route and that the second public safety building has not been built. Building one facility and bolstering the second will likely not get two new buildings.
Mr. Beck noted that in the tours of other facilities earlier in the day operational costs should be considered when proposing new vs. renovated facilities. Up keep on older facilities become a yearly drain on a department’s budget-not a construction cost but an operational cost that is yearly. Chief Chandler agreed with this, noting that a $1,000,000 to $2,000,000 renovation to the existing Fire Station will likely mean a 15-20 year stay in that facility. Chief Chandler also noted that the headquarters for the Holden Fire Department will likely be where it is (near the center of Town) but that sub-stations will probably be needed, especially in the south part of town. Mr. Lane noted that the reason the last proposal placed before Holden voters for public safety facilities was defeated was the cost, and that the
time lost between then and now translates to more cost for less facility. If the Town does not want to listen to a “rational” argument, then the Committee needs to be practical and get 1 new building done and bolster the second.
Chairman Lucchesi brought the Committee back to consider the motion proposed by Mr. Lane. Ms. Ryan noted that two facilities should be considered for cost reasons but also for risk reason; if only one public safety facility is present and it is lost, there is no backup. Mr. Makela also stated his support for separate facilities. Mr. Makela noted that there is no ideal site for a combined facility: Holden Sand and Gravel would have response time issues for major portions of the Town and the Creamer Property is in the middle of a residential neighborhood. Mr. Forts noted that 2 separate buildings are better as they offer greater flexibility to get to a solution for public safety facilities in Holden that the Town will accept.
Mr. Makela asked if the Committee is planning out 10 years into the future. 20 or 50 years? And if the Committee is planning out 20 years, is the cost less than if planning for 50 years? Mr. McKeon responded that a definite answer can not be given. Other than building a facility to last with proper materials, no one can be certain of what will develop in the fields of Police or Fire services or how the town will grow. The town of Dennis chose to save cost on the materials used so it can not claim to be a 50 year program. To summarize, a 20 year planning horizon is about as far one can go with any certainty.
It was noted that the Dennis Police facility is 23,000 square feet (but that 3,000 square feet of this is for maintenance). Mr. Makela noted an 18,000 square foot facility is needed for Holden. The Town will not be willing to respond to a second round of funding if only one department’s needs are addressed now. Building a Police facility for $6,000,000 then adding $2,000,000 to renovate the existing Fire Station has the savings on the new facility being passed to the fire facility. These figures are supported by the Dennis example but it was noted that the Dennis site is flat and easy to build on.
Chairman Lucchesi noted that in the past he has thought a combined facility has cost benefits but has come to the conclusion that the reality is cost rules in Holden. Based on this, Chairman Lucchesi is inclined to support separate facilities for Fire and Police.
A formal motion was made by Mr. Lane for the Committee to proceed with separate, stand alone Fire and Police facilities in the planning process. Mr. Makela seconded the motion. The Committee voted unanimously to approve the motion.
Several points were discussed. Mr. Lane asked if an estimate of what the costs would be for a new Police Station and renovation to the Fire Station could be prepared. Mr. McKeon noted that Kaestle Boos could develop a cost structure but advised that the costs will be affected by the site selected. Chairman Lucchesi noted that it seemed that costs to renovate the Fire Station were less than he anticipated. Mr. Beck detailed out the issues that required work with the existing Fire Station:
-re-enforcing of the floors in the truck bays is the primary requirement;
-the garage doors need to widen (currently 10’ wide, needs to be 14’ widen for a total of 12 more feet;
-the roof needs to be raised to accommodate 14’ high doors, which is at least 4’ more than currently is available and is probably the highest expense item;
This is all based on the assumption the truck bays remain where they are currently placed (due to light for access to Main Street). Mr. Makela asked the Committee to recall Mr. White’s proposal of January 17th where additional space could be added to the existing structure. Mr. Beck agreed that this would add office space but that the majority of the cost would be in widening bays and raising the roof along with strengthening the floor. Those costs, along with building new for the Police Station will cause the Town to balk at the cost if done concurrently. Mr. Beck believes the Town will fund this project to the extent that one department’s needs are addressed and the other department goes begging. Mr. Makela asked how many bays are present now and how many are needed once renovated. Chief Chandler
noted that there currently are 3 bays but that 4 will be needed (the fourth to accommodate the ambulance service). Mr. Makela noted the weight requirements for an ambulance are significantly less than those for fire equipment.
Mr. Forts made the motion that Caswell King and abutting properties be dropped from consideration as a site for the Police facility. Mr. Lane seconded the motion. Mr. Forts argued that the cost to acquire the property and demolish the existing structure along with lost tax revenues would be too high of a cost for the Town to consider. The Committee voted unanimously in favor of the motion.
Chief Chandler asked if the Committee could do a survey of residents in the area around the Creamer site to assess the acceptance or negative response to a Fire or Police facility on that site. Mr. Lane asserted that the Police Station should be dropped from the survey if done as the opinion regarding a possible Police Station on the Creamer property would likely be neutral; it would be the Fire Department that would be perceived negatively. Chief Chandler noted that it costs nothing more to ask after both. Mr. Forts opined that public relations aside, a Police Station on that site would be “hiding” it away, an undesirable consequence. Chief Sherrill noted that the fact the Town owns the site is a very positive aspect of the Creamer site. Chief Sherrill also noted that prior to Davis Hill being built the
neighborhood was not in favor of the school’s location but once built has been very positive about the school being located in the neighborhood. Mr. Makela agreed with the idea that having a visible Police presence in the middle of Town is a desirable attribute. Chief Sherrill also noted it is difficult to put a dollar figure on this benefit. Ms. Ryan questioned whether it there was a concern with the narrowness of Highland Street at the Creamer property. Chief Chandler said that he was not aware of any great problem with this aspect.
Mr. Lane expressed his belief that the Damon House site was best for the Police facility that remains on the list of potential sites. Mr. Makela asked that since the stated requirement for a Police facility given by Kaestle Boos is 1.8 acres, and that the Damon property with the abutting property is 1.6 acres, would the Damon House site be acceptable? Mr. McKeon replied that the Damon House at the size it is at would be made to work. The 1.8 acres for a Police facility is based on certain assumptions regarding setbacks, access roads, etc. that a typical site would need. Damon House with its location, shape and size would not need 1.8 acres necessarily as it does not require all the assumptions to be fulfilled of a typical site. Chief Sherrill also noted that parking for the Library currently is too small at certain times
during regular business hours so that sharing space between the two facilities would allow for preservation of some green space around a possible station while making good use of the parking areas of both buildings during more of the day.
The discussion returned to the survey of the residents near the Creamer property. Mr. Makela asked if responses to the survey could be obtained within 2 weeks. The answer given was yes. Mr. Lane asked if the survey should be done if the Committee is possibly not going to have the Creamer property as one of “the” sites. Mr. Lane stated he believes that the Damon House is the best site for a new Police facility in Holden; a general statement of agreement was made by most members of the Committee. Chairman Lucchesi noted that the Committee has to be cognizant of the fact there is public sentiment regarding keeping the Damon House where it is at in its current form. Mr. Makela noted this property is in the historic district. Chairman Lucchesi noted there is a need for the Committee to obtain an opinion from the
Town as to the limitations or covenants that exist with the Damon property.
Mr. Forts made a motion to make the Damon House site the primary choice for a Police facility. Mr. Makela seconded the motion. Mr. Makela argued for the motion stating that barring a salient reason not to build a new Police Facility on the Damon House property, this site gives a strong Police presence on Main Street and that it represents going full circle and bringing the Police Station back to where it was placed in the past. Chairman Lucchesi added that the motion should include the general order of preference of sites remaining on the list from the last Committee meeting which would be: The Damon House Property, The Creamer Property and the existing Fire Station. The motion was amended and was passed unanimously by the Committee.
Chairman Lucchesi returned to the proposed survey regarding the Creamer property neighbors; should the Committee proceed with the survey? Chief Chandler suggesting going to the Landmark and asking the paper to put the question out to the Town. Mr. Makela believed that the survey should have one or two questions only: would you support a fire station on the Creamer Property (yes or no) and why. Mr. Forts asked if the Creamer property is not lead site why ask the question? Ms. Ryan advocated for waiting on the Creamer property until the cost estimates for renovating the Fire Station are known. Chief Sherrill suggested that since no vocal opposition has been made to the Creamer property being a site for a public safety building, should the assumption be made there is no opposition? Mr. Beck urged the Committee that if a
survey is placed before the Town regarding the use of the Creamer site for a fire station that a reasoned discussion of why it is a good site for a fire station be attached (and not just that the site is owned by the Town). Mr. Lucchesi noted that if the Committee proposes to go away from using the existing Fire Station that the station would in essence have no purpose for the Town.
Once again, the question returned to what to do with the idea of a survey. Chairman Lucchesi stated that the Committee should go to the press with the question of acceptability of the Creamer property as a site for a public safety building. Mr. Makela asked if this is for a fire facility only? Chairman Lucchesi answered no, if the Damon House is not a viable option for a Police facility due to legal limitations then the Creamer property is the only other site option for the Police facility besides the existing Fire Station. The Committee agreed with this approach.
6. Needs Assessment Documents
Copies of the latest revision of the needs assessments for the Fire and Police Departments were passed out to the Committee Members. Chairman Lucchesi noted these documents are based on discussions with and surveys of Fire and Police staff on many topics, including (but not limited to ) current programs, apparatus and equipment present and needed, support areas needed or required, clean rooms, equipment storage and maintenance, locker areas for department staff, SCBA rooms, hose cleaning and drying areas, administrative offices, lobbies and meeting rooms for the public and staff, training facilities, day rooms, kitchens, exercise areas and sleeping quarters (please note many of these rooms are specific to one department or the other). Chief Chandler noted he had spent 2 days with Bob Mitchell going through
a blank survey that follows a format for planning fire facilities. Each category of room or program was considered for size, frequency of use, requirement by regulations and all other applicable aspects. The space then proposed for each area is based on standard measurements for the room type (certain rooms are very standardized, such as radio or communications rooms, clean rooms, apparatus rooms, etc.). The Fire facility is also being expanded due to the inclusion of the ambulance into the Fire facility. The various parts are summed together and presented as department’s needs for a facility. Mr.; Forts noted that in some cases the space for individual categories currently available is not listed for comparison to the request being made but that it is needed in order to assess what is optional or required by the Committee. Mr. McKeon responded that Kaestle Boos can put together such a list for the Committee. Mr. McKeon also cautioned the Committee that the needs assessment
does not take into account the layout needed for a given facility, only on what is present now or is needed now. Chief Chandler offered to take the needs assessment for the Fire facility and add the space current available for all types of spaces needed but Mr. McKeon noted Kaestle has this information available; it just needs to be added to the list. Chairman Lucchesi asked the Committee to review carefully the needs assessment and compile questions they may have. Before the next meeting all questions and concerns should be sent to Chairman Lucchesi so that he can ask Kaestle Boos to prepare for the next Committee meeting. Chairman Lucchesi also noted the need for the current spaces to be listed on the needs assessment has to b added for comparison purposes. Mr. McKeon suggested to the Committee that they concentrate on the last 5 pages of the handout as the first pages are information from the last Committees work; the later pages are filled with new information. Mr., McKeon also
noted that the needs assessments are the desired needs not compulsory needs.
Mr. Makela asked why the space needed for a new Police facility is so much more than the size of the current Police Station. Chief Sherrill noted that many of the requirements for space are fixed, set by the State. These areas include the size of cells, bath rooms, and other areas. After patrols or incidents, Officers return to the station to conduct interrogations, interviews, write reports, process detainees, conduct breathalyzer tests (with fragile equipment), etc. There are security issues that override all other aspects that must be maintained for the safety of the Police department staff, the public and detainees to maintain security and reduce liabilities. It was noted that a Police facility is really three separate areas with work flow for public issues, detainees’ issues, and departmental
issues; and these considerations add space. It was noted that tours of other recently built facilities give the best basis for judging the needs stated in the assessments as required or nice to have. One other note was made from the tours made earlier in the day by Committee members: storage space is always at a premium even in new construction so that consideration to this aspect should be given.
Mr. McKeon stated that Kaestle Boos will provide to Holden a “Police and Fire Facilities 101” class to give people an awareness of what these facilities do and need in order to do their job safely and well. Mr. Lucchesi strongly urged Committee Members to promote this “class” when it is scheduled to occur as it will be the basis of the building needs itself. Mr. Beck suggest that the presentation when made be video taped and that a PowerPoint presentation be assembled so that it can be aired on Community TV. Mr. Beck asked when would the time be right to schedule Fire and Police Facilities 101? Mr. McKeon suggested that after the schematic layout is prepared.
Mr. Lane made a motion to remove the existing Fire Station from consideration as a site for the Police Station. Mr. Forts seconded the motion. Mr. Lane argued the demolition costs alone would reduce the viability of this option. Mr. McKeon noted that demolishing the existing Fire Station to build a new Police Station was not the concept; rather it would be to renovate the existing Fire Station to become a Police Station. With that, Mr. Lane and Mr. Forts withdrew the motion.
7. New Business
Dissemination of Information
No items were considered here in addition to those mentioned above.
Future Agenda Items:
Notes from the Planning Board discussions
Public Safety Building Tours
A tour of additional sites needs to be set up and should include Grafton and Foxboro. Chief Chandler with Mr. McKeon will work on setting this up.
8. Public Comment:
Andy Miller: Mr. Miller cautioned the Committee regarding renovations. Mr. Miller asked how many renovations projects have come in close to budget? Demolition is not a high cost operation and this aspect needs clear thinking to assess the pros and cons. In renovating a poor structure to become passable planning for 10 years becomes 20 years in reality. Mr. Miller also drew the Committee’s attention to the rising costs of construction each year; what was $13,000,000 last year will be $16,000,000 for new facilities next year. Renovations are a can of worms and the cost of new may end up being less expensive.
David Ellis: Mr. Ellis noted that in renovating the fire station, temporary quarters are going to be needed for trucks and personnel. The renovations can not be done around people and trucks. This will need consideration and planning while adding to the costs. Second, the status of Damon House property must be checked; it is quite possible it was given to the Town as a memorial. Also regarding the Damon House Property, getting cars onto the road at that corner will prove difficult at times during the day due to the traffic.
Chairman Lucchesi thanked the speakers for their thoughts and noted that the Committee will consider these issues during their discussions.
9. Adjournment:
Mr. Beck made a motion to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Forts. The vote was unanimous to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 20:45.
| 
