 |
Town of Newbury
Municipal Building Committee
MINUTES
DATE: September 29, 2015 Approved as written, 10/8/2015
Present: Eric Svahn, Chair; Tracy Blais; Mike Doyle; Steve Fram; Sam Joslin; John Lucey, Jr.; Richard Ronder; Martha Taylor
Absent: Nathan Walker
Guests: Damon Jespersen, Selectmen’s Liaison to MBC; J.R. Colby, Selectman; Jim Cunningham; Peter Erickson; Mark Gleckman; Jim Moran; Joe Story; Fred Thurlow
Eric Svahn, Chair, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
- Recap of Election Results and Project History:
E. Svahn began the meeting by reviewing the results of the September 15 Special Election, noting that 33% of the registered voters had turned out – a good number for a single question ballot. However, although the MBC, and the Public Safety Complex Committee before it, had thoroughly analyzed cost and needs in developing project recommendations and the MBC had engaged the Board of Selectmen, the Finance Committee, and other Town Boards and Committees in carefully considering its input, the MBC, Town officials, and even the Vote YES PAC fell short in communicating the recommendations to the residents to achieve a majority vote to move the project forward.
For the benefit of those in the audience, E. Svahn then recapped the history of the proposed project, starting with Police Station and Town Hall deficiencies identified as early as 2004 during preparation of the 2006 Master Plan and described in greater detail in the 2012 Capital Planning Committee Report. The CPC Report was followed first by the creation of the Public Safety Site Selection Committee, and then by creation of the Public Safety Complex Committee, which was appointed to examine the feasibility of combining the Police and Fire Departments into a new building on Morgan Ave. on property owned by Protection #2 and renovating/adding on to Town Hall.
When negotiations with Protection #2 for acquisition of the Morgan Ave. property failed to move forward, the Municipal Building Committee (MBC) was formed to develop an alternative scenario for addressing Police Station and Town Hall deficiencies that would still provide the best long-term solution for the greatest number of issues in the most economical way possible. A plan was developed to build a new building on the existing Town Hall site to house Town Hall functions and the Police Department. Towards the end of that evaluation process, Protection #2 came back to the table and the MBC refocused on the original solution of developing a Public Safety Building (combined Police and Fire station) on the Morgan Ave. site and rehabbing a portion of the Town Hall basement to accommodate municipal functions currently
housed in the trailers on site. E. Svahn noted that combining facilities would maintain and enhance the synergy that exists between municipal departments and would result in significant cost savings.
As part of the feasibility conducted for both options, an architectural firm, CSS Architects of Wakefield, was hired to evaluate the existing Police, Fire, and Town Hall facilities and develop a space needs program, budget, and conceptual design first for the proposed Public Safety Building and then for a combined Town Hall/Police Building. All work since then has been done by volunteers. E. Svahn noted that the MBC held 25 Committee meetings, as well as meetings with the Board of Selectmen, the Planning Board, the Finance Committee, and the Capital Planning Committee, a Saturday workshop, and informational forums – all of this was not enough to get the word out.
- Next Steps/Open Discussion:
E. Svahn said that the Selectmen had scheduled a special meeting on Saturday, October 3, to discuss the project and next steps and would be looking for input from the MBC. He said that the reasons for the “No” votes needed to be understood in order to move forward. He then urged the MBC not to throw away all the work done so far, but rather to take what has been developed, improve on it, and move forward. Next steps might involve comparing the project to other options or obtaining outside funding for design.
He then opened the meeting up for discussion.
Peter Erickson said that while the statement of need was clear, information about the proposed project had not been readily available or understandable to the residents and people did not understand how the $990,000 for design and engineering related to the project or the process. His perception was that residents felt a lot of distrust of what was being proposed. Jim Cunningham agreed with this assessment and added that the ballot question had no dollar amount attached to it and that a ceiling needed to be set. T. Blais clarified that the ceiling of $990,000 had been set by Town Meeting last May as a not-to-exceed amount and that this number would be refined through the RFQ and final bid process. Based on recent experience with the estimate and bids for the sewer connection to Town Hall, it was
likely that the architectural and engineering fee would come in well below the $990,000 cap.
Mark Gleckman said that he saw two or three major issues remaining in the minds of voters:
- There had never been consensus on or proof of need for a new Fire Station. He recommended that an independent evaluation of the Fire Station be done by a structural engineer.
- Confusion, ambiguity, and lack of definition remained regarding the project. He recommended that the Town hire an independent Owner’s Project Manager (OPM) who could speak publicly about the project at the Selectmen’s meeting and/or Town Meeting and who would help ensure that the proper building is chosen for the right amount of money.
- Information regarding the tax impact of the project got out way too late and was too narrow.
Mike Doyle stated that, in his opinion, including the Fire Station in the project muddied the solution and recommended that the Committee go in another direction and focus on getting a new Police Station built. Other Committee members, however, continued to feel that the proposed project provided the best long-term and most cost-effective solution for addressing the deficiencies of the police, fire, and municipal office facilities.
A lengthy discussion ensued regarding the MBC’s original charge, the Town’s priorities, options to be considered, and the reasons for the “No” votes. P. Erickson said that the MBC and its consulting architect had developed all the information that was needed, but that this information should be condensed and clearly communicated to the Town’s residents. He added that, under the public procurement process, an Owner’s Project Manager (OPM) is required by law before an architect can be hired and recommended issuing an RFP for an OPM contingent on availability of funding.
For Saturday’s meeting with the Selectmen, E. Svahn suggested presenting the current recommendation and why it was made, listing other options that had been considered and other steps that could be taken, and then asking for direction from the Selectmen for next steps.
On a motion made by S. Joslin and seconded by S. Fram, the meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
NEXT MEETING:
TBD
Respectfully submitted,
Martha L. Taylor, Town Planner
MBC Secretary
| |
