(13:18 elapsed). SMP representatives discuss how to proceed with the project. Discussion of construction budget. SMP is told this had not been a major focus thus far, and that the voters are prepared to listen to a case that is made. Discussion of when the one building/ two building decision will be made. It is decided that this will occur sometime after the first public meeting, and that two designs need not be presented to the voters next year. Focus of the review of other town buildings as part of the Facilities Master Plan will be on the Town Hall, 1899 Trolley Barn (Old Police Station) and Recreation facilities, as these impact Town Hall decisions. Rec. is important because of their proposed Community Center and the possible use of the Great Hall to fulfill some of their needs. Extensive discussion of the project and meeting schedule and public input points. Chairmen of various boards, commissions and committees will be provided with meeting dates, and their members invited to attend.
(65:35 elapsed). Peter White underscores that the AG Architects plan provided for too much space. Craig Musselman agrees that they are setting new goals and putting together a plan that will work. He continues, stating that the Committee is looking for SMP’s input as to whether the new goal is too big or too small. Eric Palson underscores that efficiency (i.e. the building layout) can have a major impact on square footage requirements, as well as the number and sizes of the rooms.
(77:35 elapsed). Discussion of the “fork in the road” regarding the one building/two building decision. Discussion of the possibility of a covered walkway between the two buildings.
(81:31 elapsed). Recap of dates for future meetings (all to occur at 6:30 p.m.):
October 10, 2013 Committee meeting
October 22, 2013 Committee meeting
November 7, 2013 Public input meeting
November 19, 2013 Committee meeting
December 3, 2013 Public input meeting
December 5, 2013 Committee meeting
December 17, 2013 Committee meeting
January 9, 2014 Committee meeting (wrap up prior to warrant article submission)
January 28, 2014 Public input meeting
Deliberative session is typically the first Saturday in February.
That would make it February 1, 2014.
(86:17 elapsed). Discussion of information needed by SMP. CAD drawings prepared by AG Architects will be requested. Craig Musselman states that geothermal well data indicates a deep sand base, with the water table “way down.” Eric Palson responds that a tunnel (presumably between buildings) might then not be a bad idea. Craig Musselman rolls his eyes and laughter ensues.
(94:10 elapsed). Jason LaCombe states that they have a lot of information. They need to start drawing. He states that he particularly liked the five pages of data on storage. Editor’s note: This is an apparent reference to an investigation done by a member of the public that came up with 3396 cubic feet of documents and other items associated with Town Hall activities.
(97:25 elapsed). Discussion about meeting rooms and suitability of the Great Hall for small meetings given the acoustics. Craig Musselman states that a room a little larger than the Town Hall courtroom could handle 75 percent of meetings. Discussion about a total of 2 or 3 meeting/conference rooms in addition to the great hall. Discussion about the possibility of movable partitions in the Great Hall.
(108:10 elapsed). Public input. Peter Crawford emphasizes the importance of the Warrant Article and the Space Needs Committee report which provides for 10,500 sq. ft., plus or minus ten percent. He states that, while the Warrant Article provides for refining of space requirements, that does not appear to anticipate large revisions. He refers to a Space Needs Committee document that provides a detailed build up of a 10,478 sq. ft. space requirement, and notes that only one conference room of 200 sq. ft. is provided for in that document.
He says that the discussion of the Space Needs Committee was that the Great Hall would fulfill needs that required more than this conference room could accommodate. If it turned out to be a 500 sq. ft. area (vs. the current 400 sq. ft.), that might impact the ability to fit everything in, particularly given the 26 foot maximum extension provided in the Warrant Article for the single building option.
This comment engenders discussion about the 26 foot limit. Peter White states that there may be some “fluff” in this number, and refers to aTempleTown Halladdition that was proportionately larger. Peter Kasnet states that the 26 feet is not etched in stone. Beth Yeaton reiterated that Mae Bradshaw, Chairman of the Heritage Commission, emphasized “loud and clear” that, if it was anything more than 26 feet, they would fight it “tooth and nail.” Craig Musselman states that the single building option should be limited to 26 feet. There is not a lot of sense putting forward a proposal for a 36 foot extension. Jason LaCombe responds that he interprets their charge as making sure that the addition is compatible, not that it is limited to 26 feet. Victor Azzi states that it is the responsibility of the Committee to make its best judgment. If the design for an extension of more than 26 feet is good, then they should be prepared to defend it.
(116:38 elapsed). Peter White mentions the prior Saturday’s Regional Heritage Commission meeting in which Peter Michaud of the State Division of Historical Resources spoke. Eric Palson responds that they worked with Mr. Michaud on the Aviation Historic Society Museum.
