Police Station Committee

Police Station Project Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 13, 2013 Chairman David Eggleston called the meeting to order at 5:03pm. Attendance was taken. Committee Members: David Eggleston, Karen Neeley, Larry Kendall, Robin Lawson, Keith Ripley, Martin Shapiro, William Kenny, Dennis Jenkins, Susan Fiegel, Scott Camassar, Andrew Harvey and Dave Winkler. (Quorum: Yes-12 members present) Support Resources : Police Chief Louis Fusaro, Police Captain Patrick Daley and Sharyn Mish, Recording Secretary. Copies of the minutes from the May 23, 2013 meeting were reviewed. Keith Ripley indicated that two of the committee members, Scott Camassar and Derell Wilson were missing from the attendance list and need to be added. After the minutes were amended to include the previously omitted committee members, Dennis Jenkins motioned to adopt the minutes, Larry Kendall seconded. Motion passed with 12 in favor, none opposed. Chairman David Eggleston introduced Architect Brian Humes. The committee members conducted a Question and Answer session with Architect Brian Humes from the questions that were compiled at the May 23, 2013 meeting. (Attachment to Minutes: Questions and Answers: Architect Brian Humes) Derrell Wilson arrived at meeting approx. 5:10 pm (Quorum increased to 13 members present). After the Q&A session the committee briefly discussed some future agenda items to include possibly touring other police stations. During this discussion (at approx. 6:50 pm) committee members Larry Kendall, Dennis Jenkins and Martin Shapiro had to leave due to other meeting obligations. The meeting quorum changed at that point to 10. A request was made of the Chief to provide each Committee member with the list of the site visit protocol (Appendix 2) from the Police Facility Policy Planning Guidelines. During the discussion of future agenda items, Keith Ripley distributed a document containing the text of the mission of the committee as that was adopted by the City Council in March. He did this because the wording of the mission that is on the Police Station Project Meeting agenda template does not appear to agree entirely with the mission that was adopted. Karen Neeley asked Keith if he was looking for the agenda template to be changed to reflect what appeared to be an omission of one of the bulleted items in the mission. Keith indicated yes, that was the reason he presented it. Dave Eggleston indicated that this discrepancy would be reviewed. A confirmation of the next meeting date of June 27, 2013 in City Hall room 319 at 5:00pm was made by Chairman David Eggleston. Susan Fiegel motioned to adjourn the meeting and Andrew Harvey seconded. Motion passed 10 in favor, none opposed. Meeting was adjourned at 7:02pm. Respectfully submitted, Sharyn Mish, Recording Secretary  Attachment Page 1 of 2 Questions with Answers: Architect Brian Humes (Jacunski Humes) (1) Was the formula used for Site Needs driven by Growth Estimates generates Staff Projections established Space Needs which results in Site Needs? If no: How did you generate Site Needs? No. The process that was undertaken was not a “management study” that looked at staffing or planned for reorganization of the department. My objective was to plan for necessary “space”. As future growth was anticipated and documented, the Site Needs were developed to accommodate those projected numbers and functions. (2) What is the closest comparable facility the committee could use to validate the size and space needs? The following chart represents the Police Departments that I have programmed based upon population exceeding 30,000. Highlighted departments have been constructed. Municipality Populatio n Hartford Police Department 116,223 New Haven Police Department 113,027 Waterbury Police Department 105,057 Scranton Police Department, PA 76,415 Danbury Police Department 71,720 New Britain Police Department 68,467 Waltham Police Department, MA 59,226 Milford Police Department 52,305 West Haven Police Department 51,101 East Hartford Police Department 48,865 Wallingford Police Department 44,825 Leominster Police Department, MA 41,303 Norwich Police Department 35,368 Watertown Police Department, MA 32,986 Glastonbury Police Department 31,546 (3) Is there a practical alternative solution to the parking garage? This answer is site specific. A primary goal would be to put fleet vehicles under cover. Given the site constraints of the Cliff Street site, a parking structure was a cost effective way to manage the parking demands and provide cover to fleet vehicles. (4) What is the break out cost of the parking garage? $5,065,833 for a 3-level structure to accommodate 216 vehicles. ADD price to include a 4th level was estimated at $1,850,000. (5) Can you build for thirty years while preparing for fifty? Page 2 of 2 Yes. Conversely, it may prove to be cost effective to build for fifty while preparing for twenty. While we are anticipating growth, we are not always sure when that will occur. Growth is contingent upon conditions, demands, and funding authorization; but rarely based on available space (see your current conditions). While the Space Needs Assessment anticipates a twenty (20) year growth potential, the building will extend well beyond those years before requiring replacement or renovations. In addition, the useful life expectancy of some systems (lighting, HVAC, etc) is only 25- 30 years, so planning for replacements is always necessary. (6) What are the positive and negatives of phase construction? Positives – Allows sites to be occupied while undergoing construction (eliminates relocation costs) Negatives – Extends construction durations and increases mobilization and supervision costs. (7) Do you have any comparables for phase construction? We are currently renovating / expanding the Monroe Police Department under a phased construction approach. We recently completed Darien Police under a phase construction approach. Both of these projects demanded this approach to maintain PD services during renovations and eliminate relocation costs. (8) How much is the current parcel/building driving the cost? All costs were directly related to the approach taken for Cliff Street. The building costs were reduced based upon the reuse of the existing building. Site development costs were increased due to the amount of available land. Site acquisition costs were reduced due to some land already being City owned. Overall, this project appeared to be a good value for the City compared to new construction costs with full site acquisition costs. (9) How much would it cost if there was a “Flat four acre lot”? Was this “flat four acres” city owned, or purchased? Hypothetical;  57,000 s.f. @ $375 / s.f. = $21,375.000  Sitework @ 10% = $2,137,500  Soft Costs @ 20% = $4,275,000  Contingency @ 10% = 2,137,500  Total Project Costs = $29,925,000 (no acquisition costs included)