Brentwood committee approves single‑story police station plan, asks for price on paired town‑hall option

The Brentwood Building Committee voted to move forward with a single‑story police department design and asked the project architect to provide a comparable cost and footprint for a new town office attached to the police facility.

Architect Doug Proctor of the Turner Group presented three conceptual approaches and program sketches. "This represents about 7,500 square feet" for the one‑story police plan, Proctor said, and described the $4,700,000 figure shown to the committee as a project cost that includes soft costs and fees: "That's a project cost, not a construction cost," he said, explaining the estimate covers design fees, furniture and other non‑construction line items.

The committee said it wanted a clear, simple set of options for voters. Members agreed to present: 1) a standalone, single‑story police department (the plan approved by the committee), 2) a two‑building scenario — the police facility with a new town‑hall footprint adjacent or attached (committee requested a planning‑level cost and square footage for that option), and 3) the cost range for renovating the existing town office for comparison. Proctor gave planning numbers during the meeting: the drive‑through sally port alternative was discussed at roughly $5,530,000 and a full two‑level/basement alternative was described in the discussion around $6,400,000; Proctor cautioned those numbers vary with final site work and scope.

Committee members and public commenters pressed for clarity on what the cost numbers included and on site‑planning impacts. Proctor noted a site constraint (regulatory frontage language) and said the team had identified about 688 feet of frontage along the recreation site and a regulation that referenced a 500‑foot spacing per entrance for that frontage; he recommended further review with permitting authorities. He also reminded the group of a building‑code constraint discussed in the meeting: lower‑level spaces with ceiling heights under 7 feet 6 inches would not qualify as occupiable space.

Public commenters raised recreation‑site concerns and asked that the committee consider the town’s existing stewardship and recreation plans before finalizing layouts that alter parking or circulation. Becky Dunham and others urged that any published materials acknowledge possible impacts to the recreation parcel and explain alternatives for road, parking and pavilion placement.

The committee set next steps: Proctor will provide a planning‑level cost and square‑footage estimate for a new town‑hall footprint attached to the PD (the committee labeled that request “Option 2”), and the consultant will also provide revised floor/ exterior dimensions and a short fact sheet for public sessions. Committee members scheduled a follow‑up meeting for Oct. 28 at 1:30 p.m. in the Cross Meeting Room to review the updated documents and to plan public information sessions.

The committee repeatedly emphasized public clarity: members asked that posted materials show total gross square footage by color‑coded use and list planning‑level costs and contingency assumptions, while avoiding premature detail that could constrain later design decisions.