Police Station Committee

Police Station Project Review Committee Meeting Minutes Thursday, September 12, 2013 5:00 pm, Norwich City Hall, Room 335 Agenda Items/Notes/Discussion Action Items 1. Call to order-Chair Chairman David Eggleston called the meeting to order at 5:05 p.m. 2. Members Present/Absent-Verification of Quorum Committee Members Present: Chairman David Eggleston, Vice-Chair Karen Neeley, Scott Camassar, Susan Fiegel, Andrew Harvey (arrived 5:55 pm), Dennis Jenkins (left at 6:58 pm), Larry Kendall (left at 6:40 pm), Robin Lawson, Keith Ripley, Martin Shapiro, William Kenney. Quorum: Yes, 10 members to start, 11 members after 5:55, 10 members after 6:40 and 9 members after 6:58. Committee Members Absent: Dave Winkler, Derell Wilson Support Staff Present: Christine Averna (Recording Secretary) 3. Adoption of Minutes: August 22, 2013 Copies of the August 22, 2013 meeting minutes were distributed. Motion to adopt M. Shapiro, second S. Camassar. L. Kendall inquired about the process for editing the minutes; there appears to be some verbatim text and some non-verbatim text. Who is in charge of producing the minutes? Discussion included clarification of the process by which the Chair and Vice-Chair receive and edit the minutes from the Recording Secretary; not every word spoken needs to be included and the minutes are edited following that guideline. It was pointed out that the city council does not transcribe their minutes. Concern was expressed that the minutes as written don’t match what is on the digital recording tapes and the Chair clarified that the digital recorder is only for the convenience of the Recording Secretary to verify information and accurately capture actions; the council will act on our final recommendations, not what is in the minutes. D. Eggleston inquired if there was anything in the minutes that needed to be changed. L. Kendall replied that he was okay with the minutes as they were. The motion to adopt the 8/22/2013 minutes carried unanimously with W. Kenney abstaining. 4. Lease Option Presentation: Henry Resnikoff (H. Resnikoff), a real estate developer, brought the YMCA building on Main Street to the attention of the committee as a possible location for the new police station. In his opinion, the current building is not worth saving. He indicated it is a great location, central to major routes, and that the acreage of the land would require a building with more floors to achieve 57,000 square feet and two subterranean parking levels. He further indicated that this would be a private development and the City would have to contribute nothing but the space for additional parking lots. The City would have a lease for the property; an option to buy could also be an option. The entire process would be on his back as the developer. He has built specialty buildings before and always tries to use local trades for the work. He estimates that this would be a $22-$25 million project. Q (M. Shapiro) Can a parking structure be built two stories underground without flooding? A (H. Resnikoff). He is unsure at this time. Q (K. Neeley) Would the underground space be able to Page 1 of 3  Police Station Project Review Committee Meeting Minutes accommodate large equipment? A (H. Resnikoff) No, that’s what the two lots on the side of the building would be for. Q (M. Shapiro) What is the acreage? A (H. Resnikoff) It is about 1.4 acres for a total of about 2.4 usable acres (with the side lots) and that is why going vertical makes a difference; four useable floors and two floors of storage. He indicated that he has built government buildings and they always like a narrow footprint that goes up high. Q (M. Shapiro) Currently, we have about 12 sites on our list (some City-owned). Would you still be interested in being the developer if the City chose another site with lease option? A (H Resnikoff) Yes, but I would like to own the land. He indicated that there is currently a great window of low interest rates and the City has great credit which makes it less expensive for a developer. Q (K. Ripley) How would change orders affect the cost? A (H. Resnikoff) I try to plan for them and involve the end users to get things right the first time and reduce the likelihood of change orders. Change orders can sometime cost more above the built-in percentage of error they allow for. The consensus of the committee was that this site would be added to the list of sites being considered. 5. Acknowledge Thayer Site Proposal – D. Eggleston to correct D. Eggleston indicated that Richard Thayer sent letters to some of the committee members the site list on the suggesting another site. K. Neeley received the copy of the letter Mr. Thayer sent to Chief project plan adding Fusaro along with a map of the site which she passed to the recording secretary to be placed in the site suggested by the committee archive. There are two lots that he owns with a City-owned piece in the front. Mr. Thayer. K. Ripley showed the committee GIS maps of the site. (Action Item generated). 6. Project Plan Review D. Eggleston to update D. Eggleston distributed a copy of the current project plan. S Camassar initiated discussion site list to include all about the referenced cemetery land on the site list; it was clarified that the land referred to is sites. adjacent to the cemetery but has good access to Rtes 82 and 395. During the discussion it was decided that not all sites the committee has discussed are on the list. (Action Item generated) D. Eggleston indicated there are six meetings until January so it might be best to divide up tasks into subcommittees. We need to prepare information about these sites so we can work through them and pick the best sites as well as have a small group review the space needs. After discussion it was also determined that there needs to be a subcommittee to set the criteria to be used to rate/review sites; some sites will be eliminated simply because the footprint of the site is too small. Using previous reports as reference, the following subcommittees were formed: 1) Site Inventory List: L. Kendall, R. Lawson, and D. Jenkins with K. Ripley assisting by getting D. Eggleston to ensure street cards for the sites that D. Winkler and D. 2) Space Needs Review including asking Chief to verify/justify certain needs: S. Fiegel, K. Wilson are contacted Neeley, M. Shapiro, and possibly D. Winkler or D. Wilson. (Action Item generated) regarding subcommittee Subcommittees should use the Assessor’s office or the on-line GIS system as references. participation options. Page 2 of 3  Police Station Project Review Committee Meeting Minutes 7. Action Items a) Verify with Corporation Council what information can and cannot be copied for K. Neeley will write to distribution to the committee. (7/11/13 Meeting) Done. K. Neeley spoke with Corporation Council Corporation Counsel and he indicated that certain documents cannot be copied for and ask who the FOI distribution due to the need to protect the internal workings of the police department. officer is and get his W. Kenny asked for further clarification, in writing, as to who the city’s FOI Officer is. response in writing. (Action Item generated) b) Review Space Needs Update & Firing Range Info and formulate follow-up questions. (7/11/13 Meeting). Item carried forward. c) Research existence of additional ideas to modify the current police station site. (7/11/13 K. Neeley will invite Meeting). D. Eggleston indicated we need the Chief/Deputy Chief to clarify this. the Chief and Deputy (Action Item Generated). Chief to the next meeting. d) Committee members should review West Haven Space Needs Assessment. (8/8/13 Meeting) Item carried over. 8. New Business S. Fiegel received information that Captain Desmond of the Stonington Police Department S. Fiegel will contact volunteered to talk with the committee to share his experience with their new building. Capt. Desmond. (Action Item Generated) K. Ripley indicated he visited the site suggested by Richard Thayer and it looked like there is a fueling station and an unusual structure there. Based on that visit, he recommends that in our site analysis we include a visit to potential sites to get the feel for them. 9. Confirmation of Next Meeting Date September 26, 2013 10. Adjournment Motion to adjourn, S. Camassar, second S. Fiegel, meeting adjourned at 7:00 PM. Page 3 of 3