I am writing to you about the upcoming referendum vote on the new Police Department building, which will be held during the regular state election on Tuesday, Nov. 3.
The Farmington Police Department is in desperate need of space. Back in 2000, a space needs committee was formed to study the issue. That committee concluded that both the police and public works departments were in dire need of space, but that the public works situation was worse. The Police Department stepped aside and the public works building was constructed.
The Police Department’s space needs did not go away. The deficiencies of our current working environment include lack of privacy for complainants and/or victims, who must advise the dispatcher of their problem in an open, public area within the town office. There is no privacy to conduct business in the police department, as sounds can be heard through the walls and doors. There are no interview rooms for suspects or victims, no break rooms, no locker rooms or showers for the officers, no garage space for police use, no storage space for supplies or files, no evidence processing area with proper ventilation for hazardous fumes (this is currently done where we work and eat).
Office space is inadequate for officers and employees to perform their work, there is no adequate area to take fingerprints, and there is no storage space for officers’ gear or department equipment. Imagine working under these constraints day in and day out.
In 2008, a new Police Department Space Needs Committee was formed and charged with exploring the available options for housing the Police Department, with the goal of providing a recommendation to the Board of Selectmen. Working on behalf of the committee, the town manager investigated the former Rite Aid building and learned that the cost to lease the building would be $80,000 per year. Extensive renovations would be needed in order to make the building suitable for use by the Police Department. The manager inquired about purchasing the building, but received no reply. The current owner paid $2,087,500 for the building in 2006, (this is a matter of public record) so it is probably safe to assume that the owner would not be willing to sell it for too much less than that amount. It was also felt that the site has greater potential as a commercial location, and that to remove it from the tax rolls would be detrimental.
The manager also looked into the former Nickerson Buick/Olds building, on Farmington Falls Road across from Fairview Cemetery. The lease on that building would be $45,000 per year. The building has numerous limitations that would make it unsuitable for use as a Police facility without spending a lot of money on renovations.
It was suggested that the town lease a portion of the UMF Facilities Management building adjacent to the municipal building. Town Manager Richard Davis, Lt. Jack Peck, and I had previously looked into that space and found that the portion that would be available for lease was too small to meet the department’s needs, and would also require extensive renovations. The college would not consider selling the property to the town because facilities management would then need to develop a new facility, and there are no suitable properties available as close to campus as the current location.
The committee also discussed reconfiguring space within the present municipal building to create more room for the Police Department. With the building having been occupied for more than 30 years, nearly all configurations have been explored to the greatest extent possible. Additionally, the building envelope limits further space gain. One committee member favored looking into an addition to the building. This was explored in 2002 in an analysis conducted by Harriman Associates Architects. That study revealed a number of factors weighing against an addition.
Among the “cons” were potential conflicts between public use of the facility and emergency personnel and equipment; reliance on neighboring property for continual access to the rear of the site for parking and the Police Department; loss of access around the building; the small size of the site (approximately 2 acres) limiting the ability to expand and requiring either the purchase of adjacent land or a variance to allow building within the setback; further reducing the parking available to accommodate the typical daily load, special events, meetings, and emergency situations; and the removal of the underground oil tank in order to accommodate the proposed expansion.
The committee turned its attention to the discussions between the town and Franklin County with regard to a possible shared building at the Franklin County Detention Facility site in Fairbanks. The majority of committee members felt that any possible cost savings realized by this approach would be outweighed by a number of negative factors. These factors include conflicts with the county’s “master plan,” which appears to place priority on the dispatch function; potential conflicts between two different law enforcement agencies using different procedures; site constraints caused by the lack of municipal sewer service; and the non-central location of the site, which would separate the Police Department from other municipal departments and its areas of greatest call volume. More recently, the county commissioners have refocused their attention on their original objective of improving the dispatch situation, which reduces the probability of constructing a new building. Under consideration instead are adding onto the existing building or relocating dispatch into the current detention facility.
Lastly, the committee discussed the former town garage site at the intersection of High Street and Farmington Falls Road. Factors weighing in favor of that site include its central location; the fact that it is already owned by the town, its status as a “gateway” to the community, and the availability of all necessary public utilities at the site. Based on those advantages, a majority of the committee voted to recommend to the selectmen that the town build a new police station at the former town garage site.
Bunker and Savage Architects were hired to develop preliminary designs for the building. That firm has presented a plan for a building that will be attractive, properly sized (with room for future expansion), energy efficient, and cost-effective. The estimated construction cost for the building is $2.75 million. Annual operating costs are estimated at $50,000. Together, these expenses would add about $94 to the tax bill for a property assessed at $150,000. This seems a fair price to provide decent, adequate working space for your Police Department.
Some benefits of building in the current economic environment are that interest rates and material costs are low and contractor competition is high. These factors should result in lower bids. Also, contractors will spend money in town, helping the local economy.
I urge you to keep these facts in mind as you cast your vote on Nov. 3. I also encourage you to contact the Town Manager Richard Davis or me if you have any questions about the proposal, or to see our current working space. Thank you.
Richard E. Caton, III
Police Chief
It is nice to see this editorial full of information. You lay bare the facts of the situation for the voters, and I appreciate the transparency of your doing so. If it hadn’t shown the process of searching for alternatives, it would not have been as persuasive. Furthermore, the needs of a police department are not as clearly understood in the minds of the public, I don’t think. So the specifics in that paragraph were very helpful.
The only comment I’d make is about the exercise room: a lot of people work long hours but still head off to a private gym or the UMF Fitness Center to get their workout in. What makes the police department different? Is there a work-specific reason they can’t join the rest of us? If not, I’d comment that it is nice to see officers working out in the public, more opportunity to get to know each other.
Thanks.
You have two yes votes in this house!!!!!!!
Thanks for showing us the other options you explored. Its funny though that none of the voters got to decide what goes up for vote. Why is it just a few people who decide what goes up for vote? Has the common mill worker/construction worker/propertyowner been given the opportunity to explore these other options? Your other options seem like a good median to keep taxpayer costs down even without you telling us all of their pros. The pros can be assumed (not confirmed) but aren’t shown here. Why can’t voters have an option to vote for one option or another? in your letter, all you gave were the cons for not choosing the other options. What about the pros of the other options other than cost, which is a huge pro? So after a select few looks at other options, its this same select few that says yay or nay on these options, not the majority of people. I understand that you can’t put every option up for vote, but we need more facts and I think a little more voter/public opinion and participation needs to be given to come up with two or three other options to vote on. If my options are to vote yay or nay on something that is clearly biased (to me) towards one direction, facts are limited to what’s written in your letter and it’s going to cost me more money, than I vote nay.
I can vouch for dozens of businesses in this town and hundreds of businesses in our area that have to work in adverse conditions, but can’t write blank checks to improve them. I know a small business is not comparible to a municpality, but the economics are the same. Can the Town afford it? Are we a booming/thrivving/growing community? Not that you have to be to spend money on projects like this, but it certainly helps and makes the timing of the purchase a non-issue. There are tons of issues in this town for consideration. Can we afford it? Some people don’t mind spending a few hundred more per year on their property taxes, some won’t. Renters may not care since its not directly coming out of their pockets. The need is there, yes, I agree. The timing may not be great within our current economic state. Our police force has been doing a great job under their current adverse conditions and we need to applaud them for that, but I don’t think their operations would fold if they were asked to do it a little longer. Families and small businesses do it every day for most if not all of their lives/careers and it wouldn’t be an unreasonable request to wait until we know the full outcome of our current national/state economic meltdown.
Ken, I am a construction worker(electrician) and I was on the police space needs board. I have a young family with two small children, so I am very concerned about my taxes and my community. I feel am one of the normal tax payers of Farmington. I was very concerned about leasing a building and having nothing to show for it after a lease expires and we have dumped a lot of tax payer money into it. As far as the same few on the board that makes all the decisions, the board was left wide open to the public to join.