WASHINGTON PLANNING BOARD

Minutes

January 22, 2013

Planning Board met to work with the CIP Subcommittee’s report and spreadsheet to prioritize the town buildings and space needs of the town.

Members present: Nan Schwartz, Lionel Chute, Jean Kluk, Steve Terani

The meeting was called to order by Nan Schwartz at 6:30 PM.

Schwartz turned the meeting over to Jean Kluk and she explained what we intending to do at the meeting. We had all previously reviewed the booklets and spreadsheets before the meeting and were now being asked to contribute what we each thought were the most pressing concerns brought to light in the study. We would list items on poster/flip chart paper that Jean had taped to the wall. The aim was to pinpoint the town’s municipal building and departmental biggest needs. We also had a copy of the Warner CIP Project Ranking system, which we would apply to the list of items, if we had time to.

Chute felt we should look at the responsibilities for projects and the PB should be comfortable with suggesting policy to the Selectmen. He felt that looking at needs in the town, the biggest focus should be insuring a safe and healthy environment for all town employees and volunteers. To this end, he named the following five projects needed, in no particular order of importance:

1. Fire/Rescue/EOC Station – the F/R/E building needs a major overhaul or relocation. It has multiple problems involving safety and health issues, including ventilation, inadequate space, work environment, storage, EOC space, etc.
2. Police Station – the Police needs a major overhaul to the building or relocation. The present location has structural issues, ADA non-compliance, HVAC system not adequate, environmental hazards, including lead paint, not adequate for needs of the department, doesn’t meet state requirements or privacy requirements.
3. Town Hall – building needs overhaul of structure, environmental hazards include lead paint on the building exterior, temperature extremes, HVAC and electrical system not satisfactory, storage for files not adequate.
4. Library needs potable water.
5. DPW Garage building – water system not adequate, Ed put this in the CIP, and a warrant article is in this year to dig a new well.

The other problem identified was not maintaining town buildings as safe and usable space. Several concerns were raised pertaining to this category:

1. Old School House – this building needs proper maintenance, whether it is used as the Police Station or is used in some other way. There has been little work done on this building, which has many needs.
2. Town Hall second floor needs a certificate of occupancy, requires ADA compliance and fire escape.
3. Septic system at Camp Morgan and school (in the CIP, slated for 2014)
4. Old Town Garage – needs french drain to take care of moisture problem.
5. EOC needs dedicated space and rest area for emergencies

Kluk and Schwartz agreed with these needs and added several additions and refinements to them. EOC is a big concern, as the efficient running of things during an emergency can affect the entire town’s safety.

Terani added some capital needs that don’t relate to buildings.

1. Gravel Pit, which is projected to run out within 10 years, plans for expansion should be made now for the future.
2. Salt Shed, Ed has this in the CIP slated for 2015.

He feels that it is obviously bad for the town to fund things that are wants and not needs and the town should try to keep Washington a livable and affordable place to be. His fear is an unsustainable tax rate that drives people out.

Functionality and efficiency of town services also were mentioned as important and several things were mentioned as examples.

1. The need for proper storage of files and records for all departments/committees/commissions.
2. The need for a heated space for the Police vehicle adjacent to the station.
3. Energy efficiency, these investments save money

Schwartz had concerns about the town putting off doing energy projects on the buildings thinking this is short sighted and would save the town a lot of money over time.

There are big long-term issues to deal with over time and short-term fixes that can make things better for those using the buildings in the meantime. The need to maintain the town buildings in good working order and the necessity to determine their best uses is important.

The Planning Board needs to come to consensus and be vocal about the need to grapple with these problems. The town’s people need to be aware of all the known problems with the town buildings and department needs before making a decision to move forward on any one project. The spreadsheet does an excellent job of itemizing the needs and the results of the subcommittee’s work should be shared with the Selectmen and the town.

We looked over the Project Ranking system and discussed how this could be used to rank projects for the CIP. We will consider adopting this system within our yearly Capital Improvement Program for this coming year. We did not rank any of the projects that we discussed earlier in the evening. The full Planning Board could do this if they choose to in the future.

The system is as follows:

PROJECT/PURCHASE RANKING SYSTEM

One of the most difficult aspects of preparing a CIP is the scheduling and evaluation of proposed projects. The following system of priorities was developed to assist the departments and committees in evaluating the proposals submitted. Each project/purchase is assigned a priority using a set of 9 equally weighted ranking criteria by the department. The criteria are as follows:

􀂃 Removes imminent threat to public health or safety

􀂃 Alleviates substandard conditions or deficiencies

􀂃 Responds to federal or state requirements to implement

􀂃 Improves quality/efficiency of existing services to town residents

􀂃 Provides additional capacity to meet needs of growth

􀂃 Reduces long-term operating costs

􀂃 Provides incentive for economic development

􀂃 Project/purchase consistent with Warner’s latest Master Plan

􀂃 Project is eligible for matching funds

All of the above have an equal value. If a project satisfies a criterion, it receives a score of “1”. Alternately, if a project does not meet a particular criterion, it receives a “0”. The maximum score any project can receive is “9”.

Schwartz will type up the results of our meeting and share it at our February meeting with those who couldn’t be at the meeting. We will decide as a board what the next steps will be.

Meeting adjourned at 8:10 PM.

Respectfully submitted,

Nan Schwartz

Planning Board Secretary