Borough Facilities Committee

December 3, 2007

11:30 AM; Borough Hall

 

 

Members:  Borough Manager, Gary Webb; Police Chief Robert Tovo; Former Fire Chief Doug McWilliams; Councilwoman Ellen Emr; Councilman Stephen Shaw; Councilman Richard Urankar (chair), Board of Education Member Mark Cohen; Planning Board Member Joan Nix; Historic Preservation Committee member Pat Rusak

 

Absent:  Mark Cohen and Pat Rusak

 

Guests included residents Mary Rosseland and Fred Kanter

 

The purpose of this Facilities Committee meeting was to determine the form and content of information to be included in the “Report to Council,” scheduled for December 10th.  As such, and based upon discussions at the November 30th Facilities Meeting, the following two documents were presented for discussion and to facilitate forming a Facilities Committee consensus opinion. 

 

 

The first presented document was a “Proposed Report to Council Outline”

 

 

I.                    Brief summary of Committee facts: (this would parallel the Public presentation introduction made by Richard)

a.       Formed in August by Council

b.      Membership

c.       Mission

d.      Meeting dates and followed process

 

II.                 Needs Analysis summary (Steve’s Public presentation summary)

a.       Needs priorities assessment

 

III.               Options summary (Ellen’s public presentation summary)

 

IV.              Possible project costs (Richard’s public presentation summary)

a.       Renovating existing building

b.      Adding new space

c.       Financing & tax payer affect

 

V.                 Possible Timeline

 

Report outline – continued

 

VI.              Recommendation

a.       There exists a demonstrated need for:

-         repairs and improvements to the existing building

-         additional space

b.      Our study shows a need for 5200 additional square feet, however,

it may be possible to combine some of those needs with additional space planning review by professionals

c.       Hire a professional, or professionals, to work with a new committee charged to prepare a specific plan to meet a specifically defined need

d.      New Committee should not include Building users as members, but should include one or more residents from the ‘public’

 

VII.            Opinion

a.       Time for action

b.      Planning for the renovating and/or enlarging Borough facilities should occur simultaneously with any studies or planning for new shared services with neighbors

 

There were several comments by members regarding this outline with the general consensus supporting this format.  It was generally thought, however, that more specific input would be given when a draft was available.  The comments were also tailored to the following options as presented to the Committee.

 

The second presented document was a “List of Committee Options.”  They are:

 

  1. Don’t make a recommendation at this time.  Conduct more research/study and report in 2008.

 

Discussion points:  - more research on filing, records retention and general storage needs

-         additional site options considered

-         study administrative work processing

-         visit &study other newly built municipal facilities

-         further define proposed building configurations

 

  1. Recommend 5200 square foot building at a specific site.  (Public presentation model)

 

Discussion points:  - appears to be an ‘insiders’ request/recommendation

-         Public may not support

-         Majority of Council may not support

-         May not have unanimous support from committee members

-         Based on ‘Needs Analysis’ standards that may not be acceptable

-         Becomes complicated when cost is considered or shared services factored into possibilities

 

  1. Recommend building smaller than 5200 square feet.

 

Discussion points:  -  No specific size or configuration discussed by Committee

-         Time required for Committee to make decision

-         May not have unanimous committee support

-         How would Committee support ‘Needs?’

 

 

  1. Recommend new Facilities Committee with new mission & membership:

 

Discussion points – Discussion points for option #1 apply to this option as well

-     This is effectively starting over

-         New committee would not have building users as members

-         Eliminates possibility of Council action in 2008

-         How is Borough better off with this action?

-         This action may be supported by some Borough residents & some Council members

  1. Recommend that a “Documented Need” exists and that the Council should hire professionals to develop plan with help of existing committee.

 

Discussion points  - What is specific roll & scope of professionals?

-         Should existing Committee interface with professionals?

-         Should ‘new public’ members be added and bldg users removed?

-         Should Council & Manager interface with professionals & current Facilities Committee dissolved?

-         Is there a recommended Time Line with the professionals?

 

  1. Recommend that a “Documented Need” exists and the Council should form a committee without professionals to develop a plan.  (Same process as ‘Fields Issue”)

 

Discussion points  -  Same as option #5 above, plus

-         will a non-professional committee have the support of Council/Public?

-         What is scope & mission of new committee?

-         Existing Facilities Committee could carry the charge of Council

 

 

  1. Recommend that a “Documented Need” exists for a specific square footage and that the Council should form a committee with or without professionals to determine the best configuration and site location.

 

Discussion points -  Same as options #5 and #6 above, plus

-         Does the Committee have a recommended square footage?

-         Time for Committee to determine recommendation

-         What is criteria for need?

 

 

Other discussion points:

-         Should the report include reference to the priorities exercise completed by the Facilities Committee?  If so, does the Committee want to specifically include a list of general and/or specific priorities in our opinion?

-         Should the report comment on Shared Services?  Specifically with any particular scenarios with neighboring communities regarding the Police Department and/or the Fire Department?

-         Should the report reference an ‘Action Timeline’ that encourages decisions over study and discussion?  To ‘delay, delay, delay’ has resulted in no action on this issue for a very long time in many people’s opinion.

 

 

The consensus of the Committee was that Option 5 would guide our report and that Richard would prepare a draft for the Committee to review and offer comment at our next meeting scheduled for 8:30 AM December 7th.

 

The meeting adjourned at 1:30 PM