Public Safety Building Committee Minutes 12/12/07
Signed Stephanie J. Lull AIA, Principal
Copy: To File
179 Lisbon Street, Lewiston, ME 04240 Wilkes-Barre, PA 18701
Phone: 207-786-5623 Fax: 207-786-5625
o Bethel office
822 Grover Hill Road, Bethel, ME 04217 Seattle, WA 98101Bethel, ME 04217
Phone: 207-824-7237 Fax: 207-824-8429
Sebago Public Safety Building
Minutes from Public Safety Committee/Board of Selectmen meeting held on December 12, 2007 at the Town Office.
Noel Smith and Stephanie Lull (Smith Reuter Lull Architects); Norm Chamberlain (Taylor Engineering Associates); Allen Crabtree, Abraham Parker, Ann Farley (Town of Sebago Selectmen); Lauris Champage~~~ (Rescue Dept); Donald Olden, Maurice Davies, Greg Smith (Resident); Robert Nicholson (Town Manager)
Meeting notes will be supplied by SRL and emailed to Robert Nicholson for distribution and posted on the town website.
The next meetings will be held at 6 pm at the Sebago Town Office on January 16, 2008 and February 6, 2008 unless there is a change due to the weather.
After introductions, goals and expectations of the committee and the consultants were discussed. Noel suggested that this is the start of a dialog within the community to find the best location and to design the best facility, agreed upon by consensus, to provide an informative and thoughtful product to the voters in June at Town Meeting. The committee has gone through a four year process of site selection and development of priorities for building and equipment. The next step is to evaluate the selected sites based on cost of acquisition (if any), cost of construction and permitting, location within the community and environmental impact. In the late spring the findings of the committee will be presented to the selectmen for review, and one site with one building will be presented to the voters at Town Meeting in June, along with a
potential project budget.
Concurrent with this effort is the development of the “kit of parts” for the project, whether it be building program needs, site program needs, and prioritizing current and future requirements. Noel noted that all public buildings should be expandable and flexible, with the size of public safety equipment growing and changes in manpower from volunteers to part time or full time safety coverage. Once the “kit of parts” is agreed upon, it should be prioritized and the physical proximity of the different program elements determined. Once a site or sites are selected the elements of the program can be arranged to determine the best use of the site, how many of the desirable priorities can be accommodated, and evaluation of potential cost of construction. Site selection can be a political, emotional and confusing process,
so it is important to gather as much solid information as possible to make a well reasoned choice.
Budgets that take into consideration rising costs for future projects and changing town needs as well as balancing quality of construction against quantity of product should all be discussed. Cost control measure to consider are developing unfinished built space, creating a list of alternates for the bid process, and the project delivery methods. Visiting similar facilities was encouraged, and the Oxford Fire Station and Raymond Fire Station were discussed.
Robert will send the architects all of the previous studies and reports for the project for consideration. This will include program elements and site plot plans as discussed in the meeting. Elements of the project that were discussed in the meeting were:
· drive in vs. drive through vehicle bays
· creating a multipurpose facility
· allowing for future police/sheriff space
· there is no 24 hour fire and rescue at this time, but there will be in the future
· a desire to be energy efficient and to use innovative heating/cooling and power techniques that have a good return on investment (geothermal, windmills and photovoltaic arrays were all discussed as possibilities)
· radiant heat floors in the vehicle bay as well as instant heat recovery units and floor drains
· single story facility to avoid elevator
· bunk area that could be shared with other town employees
Norm discussed the five sites which he visited with Robert this week. See the attached review. The permits of concern are the storm water permit with DEP and the site location development permit, which has cost implications to the town. It was decided that the DEP should visit Site 1 to determine if a site location development permit would be required and that a Phase 1 assessment on Site 2 should be conducted.
At this point, the discussion turned to the possibility of a master plan for Site 1, that could be implemented over a long period of time but permitted only at the beginning of the project, creating a road map for the development of the site as the town’s needs change and grow. Consolidation of town services onto one site including public works, fire and rescue, salt and bulky waste storage, public safety training and other activities could save the town money and enable the sharing of amenities such as a maintenance bay, bunk rooms, kitchen and other elements. The committee was excited at the prospect of planning for the future, identifying potential needs and improvements which could save money for the town in the long run. It was suggested that a meeting with the fire/rescue crews and the public works staff to evaluate needs and
identifying the potential for shared amenities would be very useful.
These meeting minutes reflect the events and discussions, which occurred as interpreted by Smith Reuter Lull. If any of the above listed items are construed as inaccurate, corrections should be made known in writing within seven days of receipt of these minutes.
cc: Attendees, James Reuter
Attachments: Site Selection Review