Police Station Committee

Police Station Project Review Committee Meeting Minutes Thursday, September 26, 2013 5:00 pm, Norwich City Hall, Room 335 Agenda Items/Notes/Discussion Action Items 1. Call to order-Chair Vice Chair Karen Neeley called the meeting to order at 5:05 p.m. 2. Members Present/Absent-Verification of Quorum Committee Members Present: Chairman David Eggleston (arrived at 5:30 pm), Vice-Chair Karen Neeley, Scott Camassar (arrived at 6 pm), Susan Fiegel, Andrew Harvey, Dennis Jenkins, Robin Lawson, Keith Ripley, Martin Shapiro (left at 6:34 pm), William Kenney, Dave Winkler (arrived at 5:07 pm). Committee Members Absent: Larry Kendall, Derell Wilson Quorum: Yes, 8 members at 5:05, 9 members at 5:07, 10 members at 5:30, and 11 members at 6:00. After 6:34 pm we still had 10 members. Support Staff Present: Christine Averna (Recording Secretary), Chief Lou Fusaro and Deputy Chief Warren Mocek (Norwich Police Department) 3. Adoption of Minutes: September 12, 2013 Copies of the September 12, 2013 meeting minutes were distributed. Motion to adopt M. Shapiro, second R. Lawson. A. Harvey noted a correction for #6 of the minutes – a Criteria for Site Evaluation Subcommittee consisting of S. Camassar, A. Harvey and D. Eggleston should have been listed with the other subcommittees. The motion to adopt the 9/12/2013 minutes as amended carried unanimously with D. Winkler abstaining. 4. Open Action Items: a) Review Space Needs Update & Firing Range Info and formulate follow-up questions Review of this report is (7/11/2013 Meeting)-Q (K. Neeley) Does this document remain on the committee list or can moved to the Space it be moved to the Space Needs Subcommittee? Discussion followed and it was generally Needs Subcommittee. agreed that this document needs to still be reviewed but could be done so in subcommittee and reported back on. (Action Item Transfer). b) Research existence of additional ideas to modify the current police station site (7/11/2013 Meeting). Representatives from the Norwich Police Department were present to address this item. Chief Fusaro indicated that in the late ‘90’s they realized they needed more space. There was no funding or professional help. They were trying to think up ideas to fix it. One idea was decking the existing north parking lot – similar to what was done at City Hall – as a potential to add some parking. The parking lot across the street doesn’t belong to the Department but they use it under a gentlemen’s agreement with the owner. There was also an idea to add on south on the lot of the existing building. The original builder, Gary Schnip, indicated they might be able to get 4,000 to 4,500 square feet more with that solution. They tried to get bond money for an architect so to determine if any of these things could be done. One of the issues going south is the sea wall/retaining wall; that would have to be extended to build south. Page 1 of 4  Police Station Project Review Committee Meeting Minutes Q ( M. Shapiro) Could we build an addition on the land across from the existing station? A (Chief Fusaro) No, it would be very expensive to do that, to go up over the road, blasting for footage. Q (M. Shapiro) So it sounds impractical to try to expand the current area? A (Chief Fusaro) Only parking might be expanded and building up the current station wouldn’t meet current seismic codes; everything would have to be rebuilt. The police department would also have to move to a temporary site for 18 to 24 months during construction The current police station site will remain on the list of potential sites and the feasibility of using it will be quantified and justified like the other sites on the list. Action item completed. Review of West Haven c) Committee members should review West Haven Space Needs Assessment (8/8/2013 report moves to Space Meeting)-Q (K. Neeley) Does review of this report need to remain an action item for the Needs Subcommittee entire committee? Consensus of attendees was that it should be reviewed by a for reporting to the subcommittee. (Action Item Transfer) committee. d) Update the potential site list in the project plan to include the site submitted by Mr. Thayer d)-Carried Over (9/12/2013 meeting)-D. Eggleston indicated he still needs to update. e) Update the potential site list to include ALL sites that have been suggested/submitted e)-Carried Over (9/12/2013 meeting)-D Eggleston indicated he still needs to update. f) Ensure that D. Winkler and D. Wilson are contacted regarding subcommittee participation (9/12/2013 meeting). Completed prior to this meeting. g) Write to Corporation Counsel and ask for confirmation, in writing, as to who the City of Norwich FOI officer is. (9/12/2013 Meeting)-K. Neeley read the email reply from Corporation Counsel to the committee (verbatim email text below). Done. “Many FOI requests are sent to the City Manager who tries to forward them to the appropriate department for response. The City Clerk probably gets the next largest number of requests. I suspect Deputy Chief Warren Mocek functions as an FOI Officer for the police department, Brigid for Human Resources, John Bilda or Michelle Addabbo for NPU, The Superintendent or her staff for NPS, Chief Scan or his secretary for the NFD and the department heads all are called upon on occasion. I receive a number of questions from city employees and officials about responding and/or what is required. We all call the FOI Commission from time to time with inquiries often dealing with Tom Hennick there, 860 566-5682 or 866 374-3617. As far as I know we do not have any one individual identified as the FOI Officer, and I am not aware that we ever did. I understand that the City Clerk may be asked to add that title to her resume given the ability, existing or planned, to allow FOI requests to be made via the city web site. Mike” h) Invite Chief Fusaro and Deputy Chief Mocek to the 9/26/2013 meeting (9/12/2013 Meeting). Done. i) Contact Captain Desmond at the Stonington Police Department regarding discussing with Item i) is moved to the the committee his experience in building a new police station. (9/12/2013 Meeting) S. Space Needs Fiegel indicated this was discussed at the Space Needs Subcommittee meeting. We’re Subcommittee for trying to figure out if we want him here or us to go there. Chief Fusaro indicated this is a follow-up. good potential for a site visit; it was built within the last 10 years. (Action Item Transfer) Page 2 of 4  Police Station Project Review Committee Meeting Minutes 5. Subcommittee Reports: a. Space Needs Assessment: D. Winkler indicated the committee met and they plan to do a site visit to West Haven asking: 1) what went well and what didn’t?, 2)what they could have done differently? and 3) what is adequate and what is inadequate and why? It would be helpful if the Chief and/or Deputy Chief could join the subcommittee; it would provide a point/counter point discussion to determine site needs assessment size. The Chief agreed that both he and the Deputy Chief would attend and that West Haven is a good site to compare. Discussion followed and suggestions by attendees included looking at the space needs request based on must haves, safety must haves, and regulatory must haves. Whatever is in the current facility is a “must have” but the size of those spaces is debatable. However, an architect will have to meet code requirements and there will be certain space requirements based on the number of people using certain spaces. An impound lot was included in two previous plans. The Chief confirmed that having an impound lot away from a station is a safety and security issue. b. Previous Site List: The subcommittee hasn’t been able to meet yet, one of the members is having some personal health issues making scheduling a meeting more challenging. D. Eggleston indicated that, if necessary, the committee will re-evaluate the subcommittee membership issue at the next meeting. This committee’s purpose was confirmed to be: ensuring we have the entire list of potential sites and consider information in all previous studies that have been done on any of them. K. Ripley found and printed property cards for all the sites he could find as well as flood plain interference information; how the flood plain would affect road access. M. Shapiro will help K. Ripley find all the sites he couldn’t find. c. Site Ranking Criteria: A. Harvey distributed a draft document with criteria they’ve taken a first stab at trying to categorize things. D. Eggleston added that we are looking for criteria, not solutions. Discussion followed and the subcommittee will be taking into consideration the following recommendations:  “this site can accommodate a building _______ square feet only”  Should there be go/no go criteria or a numerical formula  Should criteria be numerically ranked or scaled?  Does type of neighborhood rank sites differently? Weaker or stronger?  Criteria needs to be able to help the committee justify the ranking of the sites 6. New Business D. Winkler made reference to our mission and is not in favor of giving the council multiple solutions; he is in favor of one strong recommendation. D. Eggleston confirms that the mission states “a course of action” which could include multiple solutions but we are not there yet. Ideally, it would be great to give the council a clear plan along with a clear plan of how to sell it to the community. D. Eggleston indicated the committee needs to consider how decisions will be made; unanimous votes? Majority votes? Ranking? Page 3 of 4  Police Station Project Review Committee Meeting Minutes Discussion followed including the strengths and weaknesses of the former Buckingham School site, how a downscaled facility might have made the Cliff Street proposal more attractive to the public, how many members of the public don’t feel we need a new facility but that a tour of the current facility makes the need real, and just how “qualified” are we to be making the decisions we are making. W. Kenney closed the discussion making a point that our final decision does not have to be unanimous; we are all determined to do our very best. Our minutes will show all the reasons for why certain properties were not chosen; we need to fulfill our mission. 7. Confirmation of Next Meeting Date The next meeting is scheduled for October 10, 2013. 8. Adjournment Upon a motion of D. Jenkins, seconded by S. Camassar, it was unanimously voted to adjourn at 7:07 pm. Page 4 of 4