Police Station Committee

Police Station Project Review Committee Meeting Minutes Thursday, June 27, 2013-5:00pm, Norwich City Hall, Room 319 Agenda Items/Notes/Discussion Action Items 1. Call to order-Chair Chairman David Eggleston called the meeting to order at 5pm. 2. Members Present/Absent-Verification of Quorum Committee Members Present: Chairman David Eggleston, Vice-Chair Karen Neeley, Scott Camassar, Susan Fiegel, Dennis Jenkins, Larry Kendall, William Kenny, Robin Lawson, Keith Ripley, Derrell Wilson, Dave Winkler. Quorum: Yes, 11 members. Committee Members Absent: Andrew Harvey, Martin Shapiro Support Staff Present Deputy Police Chief Warren Mocek, Jill Brennan (Substitute Recording Secretary). 3. Adoption of Minutes: June 13, 2013 J. Brennan will attach Copies of the minutes from the June 13, 2013 meeting were distributed. Motion to architect’s response to June adopt, D. Wilson, 2nd W. Kenney, discussion followed. 13, 2013 minutes. W. Kenney would like the minutes to more accurately reflect the process and specific detail discussed in the meetings. K. Neeley suggested specifically stating to the secretary items that should be documented in the minutes. D. Winkler agrees. Motion to amend minutes to attach Architect’s responses to questions, K. Ripley, 2nd D. Wilson, motion carried unanimously. Motion to amend minutes to reflect the request made to Chief Fusaro to provide each member with the list of the site visit protocol from the Police Facility Policy Planning Guidelines, by K. Ripley, 2nd D. Wilson, motion carried unanimously and minutes were approved with amendments. 4. Discussion: Committee Mission Statement S. Mish needs to update The City Council minutes and resolution regarding the mission of the Committee are not committee contact list with D. in agreement with the statement that is at the top of the current committee agenda Winkler’s current email template. K. Ripley suggested adding the accurate wording to the top of the agendas address and re-distribute to going forward. Motion to update the current agenda template using the Council all committee members resolution wording below to the top of all future agendas, K. Ripley, 2nd Susan, motion carried unanimously. S. Mish will need to email draft minutes and meeting • Review previous project information; agendas to committee • Identify sites and scope information, including any potential new sites, suitable members after they are for development as a police station to meet the needs and the mission of the police posted to the city website department; (on-going). • Rank, in order of priority, which sites, (including any potential new sites), meet the needs and the mission of the police department; • Recommend a course of action in a written report to be submitted to the Council by the first meeting of the Council in September, 2013. D. Jenkins asked for clarification regarding email communications between committee members. K. Neeley indicated that she spoke to Corporation Counsel and the City Page 1 of 4  Police Station Project Review Committee Meeting Minutes Manager regarding ex parte communication and illegal meetings. K. Ripley suggested that any communication or questions be raised during a properly noticed meeting. Group emails could possibly be construed as a meeting and should not take place. K. Neeley requested that if anyone has set up a group email it should include only committee members. If support staff need to be included they should be cc’d. D. Winkler asked that his email be corrected to: davenpdc@comcast.net K. Neeley pointed out that the City’s website has the “Notify Me” option that would be useful for Committee members. If anything is posted pertaining to the Committee, it will automatically be emailed to people that have been signed up for those notifications. K. Ripley suggested not using a mobile phone to access the notifications. Agendas and minutes will still be emailed to all Committee members. The “notify me” option would be a useful back-up. 5. Discussion: Dissemination Options of Document to Committee: IACP K. Neeley will send by email a Police Facility Planning Guidelines link to the document to all committee members. 6. Space Needs Clarification Q&A with Chief Fusaro DC Mocek to make sure the Deputy Chief(DC) Mocek presented in place of Chief Fusaro. floor plan with measurements can be distributed and if so, Architect Brian Humes commented in a previous meeting that the needs assessment is a provide members with copies. large part of understanding the project. It would be helpful to the Committee to explain changes in how the Police Department wants to function and how it has to function. DC Mocek to find data/back- up/rationale and the research D. Winkler commented that there is an opportunity to benchmark West Haven. This is a that was used to develop the key way to understand the difference between the two needs assessments. plan that was developed by the architect in relation to cell D. Wilson said that he feels that the next piece is not just reviewing the site assessment need and distribute to document, but visually looking at a facility. His focus is clarifying the site assessment as Committee. it applies to some of the other sites as well and not just focusing on one standing structure. DC Mocek to provide a copy of outdoor range research K. Ripley would like to know what the areas are that the architect would not debate and planning information to (safe) and the requirements as far as regulations. He feels that the Community Room is the Committee. particularly vulnerable. There are reasons for some of the various needs. K. Neeley to email the link to K. Neeley commented that the final report may not be ready for the September deadline the Oregon regional range to and may be more of a status report at that time. The Committee has the opportunity to Committee members. communicate the process that is being taken to the public and that will build confidence in any decisions or recommendations made. D. Wilson feels that the Committee is taking the time to weigh the different options and form consensus as a Committee and that is the most important objective. S. Camassar feels that Norwich’s needs are going to be unique and must be understood apart from similar facilities. Chair D. Eggleston opened the floor for questions for DC Mocek. DC Mocek presented a floor plan that he drew up. D. Eggleston suggested that he sit down with DC Mocek and Page 2 of 4  Police Station Project Review Committee Meeting Minutes compile the dimensions into a table. DC Mocek distributed a document he already created from the measurements on the drawing that showed the amount of square footage requested for areas in the proposed space needs assessment with a column for the size of these spaces in the current facility. Questions for follow-up/requiring actions: Q: Is there a security issue with distributing copies of the floor plan? (Action Item generated) Q: D. Winkler asked if the square footage could be boiled down and compared to the needs assessment. He would like to know where items/duties that are listed as “none” are currently being performed. Q: How many Captains’ office spaces are there? A: 1 The current training room size: 1127 sq. ft Proposed: 1200 sq ft for combined use of training/community/EOC. This is significantly different from what West Haven has. K. Neeley spoke to another law enforcement professional who had retired from the CT State Police after 25 years and offered the following suggestions:  Do not skimp on multi-use space  A firing range could be regionalized and also double for public use.  The CT State police often transfer females directly to Niantic. DC Mocek indicated that this is not the practice in Norwich. She asked DC Mocek for data regarding the number of prisoners, age, gender and length of hold over the past year or so. The data could help substantiate the stated need to the public. DC Mocek stated that it would take some research, but he could gather that data. (Action Item generated) R. Lawson asked if that would go along with the safety/security/regulation aspect. K. Ripley stated that the regulations/law may require certain things and it wouldn’t matter what the data showed. Q: L. Kendall asked if proposed cells would be for Norwich use only or for surrounding towns as well? A: DC Mocek responded that prisoners from other municipalities have been taken in the past if there was a need as a mutual aid service. K. Ripley stated that he was impressed that the firing range was also used for rehabilitation purposes and that this need should be kept in mind. D. Jenkins spoke to regionalization of the range. The Chief had a concern that use would be restricted/ time limited if public has use. Q: S. Camassar: Do most other surrounding towns have their own ranges? A: Groton has an indoor range; Waterford has an outdoor range which Norwich was able to use at one time, but no longer. Montville does not have one. Mashantucket have an indoor range that they open up to local authorities. Q: Does the range have to be co-located within the Station? Could it be added later as a Page 3 of 4  Police Station Project Review Committee Meeting Minutes separate facility? Could it also be done later as planned addition to the new facility? A: DC Mocek stated that an outdoor range can be more flexible. Indoor ranges have limitations. He has a conceptual plan for an outdoor range that he can submit for the Committees’ review. (Action Item generated) D. Jenkins feel that both an indoor and an outdoor facility are needed and a necessity. Q: Did the size of the proposed gun range (2200 sq ft) take into account simulations for night time shooting, etc? A: Current space 1155 sq ft. Q: R. Lawson asked about the costs of paying transportation for an employee to travel to a regional range? Q: What is the current requirement for the department? A: They use the Norwich Fish & Game outdoor range four times per year. The minimum requirement is re–certification one time/year. Q: What is the annual budget for training and what would be the difference with an on- site range? A: It would make training much more accessible, i.e. an officer can take 15 minutes from their shift for practice. K. Neeley has a link to a public safety training center 22,300 sq ft which is a regional indoor firing range for both the public and public safety officials in Oregon. Q: D. Winkler: Of the roughly 80 officers on the force do they all use the current indoor range to qualify annually or do they go elsewhere? A: The Norwich Fish & Game is being used currently for the qualifying purposes. This agenda item will continue to next meeting agenda. The Committee asked that DC Mocek attend next month’s first meeting. 7. Open Action Items: Chief Fusaro/S.Mish follow-up a) Update of further info coming from Architect Brian Humes: Re; West Haven with B. Humes for status of Police Station Needs Assessment sharing W. Haven PS Needs Who is following up on this? (Action Item generated) Assessment with Committee. Carry item to next meeting agenda. 8. Discussion: Upcoming Meeting Agenda Items (Time permitting)  Tours of other facilities-logistics  The September report should include rationale and reasoning for touring other facilities. 9. Confirmation of Next Meeting Date Thursday, July 11, 2013, 5-7pm, Room 319, Norwich City Hall 10. Adjournment Motion to adjourn, D. Wilson, 2nd S. Camassar, meeting adjourned at 7:06 PM. Page 4 of 4