Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDecember 17, 2007 Work SessionGurt' L. Peterson CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS ~ta}nr Councilmembers Robert :I. If'i!liams 590 40"' Avenue NE, Columbia Heights, A9N 55421-3878 (763)706-3600 TDD (763) 706-3692 Bruce,Vu,rrocki Tanwrera Dielrm [visit our rvebsite at: n'rvrv.c/.catruubia-beiglrts.nra•rts Bruce Kei_enberg City Alanagcr I{ alter R. Febsr ADMINISTRATION NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING ?: X X Y Y X X X 3. X :F ~ to be held iiz the CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS as follows: Meeting of: COLUMBIA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL Date of Meeting: DECEMBER 17, 2007 Time of Meeting: 7:00 P.M. Location of Meeting: CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS Purpose of Meeting: WORK SESSION AGENDA ACAC -final recommendation Safety facility presentation - Buetow and Associates The City of Columbia Heights does not discriminate on the basis of disability in the admission or access to, or treatment or employment in, its services, programs, or activities. Upon request, accommodation will be provided to allow individuals with disabilities to participate in all City of Columbia Heights' services, programs, and activities. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request when the request is made at least 96 hours in advance. Please call the City Council Secretary at 706-3611, to make arrangements. (TDD/706-3692 for deaf or hearing impaired only) TO: Mayor and City Council Members FROM: Robert Streetar, Community Development Director DATE: 30 November 2007 SUBJ: Public Safety Facility and Community Center This memorandum presents the Activity Center Advisory Committee's (ACAC) community center recommendation and the Buetow and Associates recommendation for a public safety facility. This packet provides the ACAC and public safety final reports, as well as financial data describing the overall cost, the impact to City's debt limit, and the cost to the taxpayer. Also provided is a memorandum from Steve Bubul, the City's legal council describing different financing options. Attending to present the reports as well as answer questions will be: Community Center • Jerry Herringer and Denny O'Connel, co-chairs of the ACAC • Victor Petchaty, BKV • Kirsten Partenheimer, project coordinator Public Safety Facility • Randy Engel, Buetow and Associates • David Olds, Buetow and Associates • Gary Gorman, Fire Chief • Bill Roddy, Police Chief Financing and Legal • Mark Ruff, Ehlers and Associates • Steve Bubul, Kennedy and Graven. Attached: 1. ACAC Final Report -Community Center 2. Buetow Final Report -Public Safety Facility 3. Financial Impacts Report 4. Legal Memorandum of Financing options ACTIVITY CENTER PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS Executive Summary Summary Recommendation Concluding ayear-and-a-half public participation process initiated by the City Council, the Activity Center Advisory Committee (ACAC) is prepared to offer its recommendation to the Council. The recommended building program includes amenities that meet the wide range of needs within the community and augment existing facilities. Three gyms; locker rooms; a walking track; a fitness area; a fitness studio; aconcessions/dining area; a large meeting room with kitchen and stage; and, a children's play area with patron childcare would comprise 66,243 square feet. The committee recommends as a site N.E.I. The total estimated capital cost is $14,457,163. Minus the City cash contribution of $3.9 million, the remaining cost to finance would be $10,557,163. Background In the spring of 2006, the City Council identified the problem of limited recreational and gathering space in the community. In response, it inaugurated a public participation process and appointed 36 community members to an advisory committee, named the Activity Center Advisory Committee (ACAC). Consultant Mark Ruff of Ehlers & Associates was hired to facilitate the process. The final step of the process includes a recommendation to the City Council from the ACAC on an activity center facility and a site. The Process The public participation process followed a communications plan to organize communications and public participation for the Columbia Heights Activity Center study process. Four key stages served as the crux of the plan: 1. Communicate the problem 2. Communicate the process 3. Communicate the options 4. Communicate the selected option Communicate the problem and the process The ACAC identified the need for recreational and community space and hosted its first open house in July 2006 to inform the public of the need and the public participation process, and to solicit feedback. At this public forum and subsequent open houses, attendees were encouraged to provide feedback to the ACAC by filling out a feedback form. The committee noted how the lack of gym and fitness studio space has contributed to shortened seasons, ongoing scheduling conflicts, canceled programs and utilization of inadequate space for some programs. A community performance stage, medium-sized conference room space (with kitchen facilities) and an indoor walking area were also identified as needed to serve unmet or curtailed programming within the community. At the first meeting, and throughout the public participation process, the ACAC discussed the feasibility of several potential sites within Columbia Heights. The sites considered at some point during the process include: • Hilltop/Valley View Elementary School • Heritage Heights neighborhood • N.E.I. • Huset Park • Saver's at 49th and Central • Columbia Heights High School During this stage, the issue of whether a library should be included in the plans for a new activity center was raised. The issue was included in an update to the City Council at a work session and at the first open house, which Library Board members attended. However, a new library was not ranked as a priority by the committee when it prioritized amenities and was, therefore, not included in the options presented to the public at the second open house. Communicate the options The third step called for the committee to communicate the alternatives. The committee determined the amenities that best meet the needs of the community and prepared site and building alternatives to present to the public. The ACAC reviewed studies and public feedback, conducted a review of space needs in the city and retained an architect, Victor Pechaty, from BKV Group, to conduct a feasibility study of amenity and site alternatives. From this work came four alternatives that were brought to the public at a second open house for comment in July 2007. The first three alternatives presented to the City Council in February focused on a common group of amenities and were proposed for either Huset Park or N.E.I. The details of the alternatives are summarized in Figure 1. Finure 1 . _J___ Option N.E.I. (Full Build-Out) N.E.I. (Partial Build-Out) Nuset Park (Partial Build- Out) • Four gyms Two gyms • Two gyms • Walking track Walking track Walking track • Fitness area • Fitness area • Fitness area • Fitness studios Fitness studios Fitness studios • Concessions Concessions • Concessions Amenities • Meeting rooms Meeting rooms • Meeting rooms ' • Children's play area Children's play area s play area Children • Teen center Teen center Teen center • Senior center Senior center Senior center • Stage Stage • Stage • Aquatics • No aquatics • No aquatics Size 117,661 s.f. 78,661 s.f. 91,648 s.f. Capital Cost $22,007,554 $14,354,558 $15,036,169 City Cash - $ 3,900,000 - $ 3,900,000 - $ 3,900,000 Financing $18,107,554 $10,454,558 $11,136,169 Cost - N/A Facility designed for • Facility designed for Future feasibility of future feasibility of future Expansion expansion of two gyms expansion of two gyms and and aquatics aquatics • Allows for expansion of • Assumes no net loss of ball additional gym space on fields site or at high school Allows for expansion of Special Notes additional gym space on site or at high school • Includes fullest utilization and remodel of Murzyn Hall At a February 2007 City Council work session, School Board members expressed a desire to build gym space for District students; consequently, the Council invited the Board to present its gyln expansion plan for the high school at the next ACAC meeting. A School Board representative presented a series of proposals, developed by ~ Capital costs are in 2008 dollars. 7 the District's architect and consultant, that included such amenities as one to two gyms, a walking track, a new fitness room and solve community meeting space. Although the ACAC had asked whether other locations on the high school property would be considered, such as south of the school building, Board representatives indicated that only the land north of the existing pool would be considered as a location for expanded recreation space. The ACAC debated at length an alternative that would meet the needs of both K-12 District students and the rest of the community. Fueled by a desire by some members to be equal partners with the School District on meeting the needs of the greater community, discussions on the subject resurfaced throughout the process. After considering the proposal presented to the committee by the School Board, and asking questions of District representatives, ACAC members voted not to include the Board's proposal in-full; instead, voted to add a fourth alternative to the list. The decision by the committee not to pursue a facility at the scale being considered in the alternatives for N.E.I. and Huset Park factored in the professional opinion of the ACAC's architect, Mr. Pechaty, who advised that the site north of the existing pool was too small for partial build-out facilities initially considered for Huset Park and N.E.I. The fourth alternative, referred to as the Multi-Site Option (High School and either N.E.I. or Huset Park), proposed the construction of a partial build-out alternative at either the N.E.I. or Huset Park site, with the city providing up to $1.06 million of the capital cost shortfall in the construction of a second new gyl~ at the high school, as the District had indicated to the ACAC that it had the funds for only one. Ajoint-powers agreement would have determined hours of usage between school and community use. The details of the Multi-Site Option are outlined in Figure 2. Figure 2 Option Multi-Site Option (High School and either N.E.I. or Huset Park) • Two gyms at Huset Park or NEI + new gym at high school • Walking track • Fitness area • Fitness studios • Concessions Amenities • Meeting rooms • Children's play area • Teen center • Senior center • Stage • No aquatics Size Between 78,661 and 91,648 square feet + new gym at high school N.E.I. Huset Park Capital Cost $15,414,558 $16,096,169 City Cash $ 3,900,000 $ 3,900,000 Financing Cost $11,514,558 $12,196,169 Communicate the selected option After receiving feedback from the public at its second open house in July 2007 on the four alternatives, the ACAC was prepared to work quickly towards a recommended preferred alterative to present to the public at its third and final open house. By incorporating feedback from the public, the needs of a diverse community and previous direction from the City Council, the ACAC voted in September 2007 to recommend a building space program, which included components that reflected the recreational and community needs of the City of Colul~nbia Heights. The details of the recommended preferred alternative are outlined in Figure 3. The committee also indicated through a vote a preference for the N.E.I. site. Committee members devoted much discussion to the issue of site location prior to the vote, as well as earlier in the process. While Huset Park was a z The Multi-Site Alternative is $1.06 million more expensive than simply building either the Huset Park Partial-Build-Out or the N.E.I. Partial Build-Out as a stand-alone project. Of the X3.9 million city cash contribution, $1.06 million would go towards the construction of a gym at the high school, leaving only X2.84 million to help finance the construction of one of the partial build-out alternatives. favorable location for its proximity to the City's largest park and to Murzyn Hall, concern for the loss of green space, notably ball fields, predominated. FIn11rP_ 3 ..~--- - • Three gyms • Locker rooms • Walking track • Fitness area Amenities Included • Fitness studio • Concessions/dining area • Large meeting room with kitchen and stage • Children's play area and patron childcare • Common su ort s ace and building services Size 66,243 square feet Capital Cost $14,457,163 City Cash - $ 3,900,000 Financing Cost $10,557,163 This recommended space alternative was the final product of a process, which involved modifying a preferred alternative to achieve an outcome that maintained a realistic budget and met the needs of the community. The process involved researching comparable facilities in order to adjust the square footage of amenities to better match the needs of the Columbia Heights population. The committee discussed how to reallocate space so that desired amenities could stay in the space program without significantly increasing the cost or square footage. The result was a proposed facility with 66,243 square feet and an estimated cost of $14,457,163. The financing cost was estimated to be $10,557,163, after a City cash contribution of $3.9 million. The estimated capital cost has been adjusted to reflect 2009 construction costs. The estimated annual operating expenses of the facility are approximately $534,000. This estimate is based on operating costs of comparable facilities in operation in the Twin Cities. Operating expenses will be offset by revenue collected through membership fees and daily passes. The revenue for the recommended alternative was estimated by using the conservative projections anticipated at a Columbia Heights facility, multiplied by the suggested membership and daily pass fees. The estimated revenue generated from membership and passes alone would be approximately $400,000. This revenue does not include membership enrollment fees, tournairtent revenue, meeting room reservations, birthday parties, program fees or concessions. A more detailed analysis of the operating expenses and revenues could not be made during the feasibility study phases. The ACAC presented this alternative to the public at its third and final open house on November 7, 2007. Recommended Alternative Following the November 7, 2007 open house, the ACAC met for a final time to discuss feedback from the open house and agree upon a final recommendation to present to the City Council. The ACAC had the opportunity to tweak its recommendation, but decided that no open house feedback or additional information prompted any changes. In consensus, it agreed upon the alternative, as presented to the public at the third open house, as its final recommendation. (Figure 3) As it was the last time the ACAC would meet before it concluded the public participation process with its presentation to the City Council, the committee used the time to discuss any issues that remained on the minds of committee members. They recommended including in the appendix of the final report a summary of some of the a Capital cost assumes Fall of 2008 construction start. '~ issues that were often discussed, but were not ultimately included in the recommended alternative. This summary can be found in Appendix A. Gerry Hettinger and Denny O'Connell, Co-Chairs of the ACAC, will present on behalf of the committee its final recommendation to the City Council at a work session on December 17, 2007. 5 APPENDIX A Throughout the public participation process, the City Council has been regularly updated at key stages and on the discussions the ACAC has engaged in. The ACAC, nonetheless, felt it was important that critical subjects or decisions be accounted for in the appendix. Heritage Heights The idea to renew and redevelop the Heritage Heights neighborhood through the construction of an activity center remained a debate throughout the process. Some committee members, including some who also lived in Heritage Heights, supported the idea of the neighborhood as a potential site, and reintroduced the subject at various points. However, some ACAC members felt it was not the committee's charge to solve the problems of a specific neighborhood. While members of the group acknowledged that the needs of the Heritage Heights neighborhood are important, they pointed out that the increased cost by millions of dollars, due to acquisition, demolition and relocation, the increased site assembly time of three to five years, and the potential for legal challenges (which would be both costly and further delay the project) were serious considerations. Despite the prohibiting facts of costs and time, it was difficult for the committee to ultimately eliminate Heritage Heights from the sites being considered, because the neighborhood was otherwise the favored site for many. During an update to the City Council following the final decision by the ACAC on the issue, the Council was asked whether it wanted to reintroduce the Heritage Heights site as an additional location for the activity center. While some members of Council stressed that they were committed to helping the neighborhood of Heritage Heights and that the site was even a preferred location, time and cost were concerns and could possibly be insurmountable issues. Council members noted that the City is working on other options that will benefit the whole City, including Heritage Heights, as well as, initiatives targeting the neighborhood, such as the construction of a parking ramp on the corner of 47`h and Central. Library As discussed in the body of the report, the idea to include a library was discussed early in the public participation process and was presented at the first open house. While it was generally agreed that a library serves an important role in the community and that the current space is inadequate, the committee discussed whether it was appropriate to include the library as part of this process, as a library was not part of the initial charge to the ACAC. Library Board members provided information to the ACAC to be shared with the public at the open house, and attended the event in large numbers. As the committee began to devise a set of alternatives to present to the public at a second open house, it decided not to include the library. At an estimated cost of $6.4 million and with 20,000 square feet, the building would have added considerable cost and needed building space. Working with the School District With two School Board members, the Athletic Director, Principal and other School District employees serving on the ACAC, the committee included representation from the School District. Months after the public participation process was underway, and as the committee was already preparing for its first open house, a School Board representative attended an ACAC meeting to announce that the School District was investigating building additional recreational space at the high school. The Board assured the ACAC that it wanted to be a viable partner and was not trying to take over the process and that it was not promoting any plans until the Committee makes its recommendations. Because the District is responsible for the needs of the community's school children, it wanted to be a more active partner in the process, even if the ACAC were to recommend a location other than school property for a facility. The School District returned months later, accompanied by an architect and consultant, to present a series of proposals for recreational facility expansion at the high school. The plans included amenities, such as, one to two gyms, a walking track, a new fitness room and some community meeting space. Throughout the process, the ACAC discussed whether it wanted to consider a joint powers agreement with the School District and how viable such an option would be. There were questions about how often members of the community would actually be able to use recreational and meeting space and whether use during the school day would really be feasible. Many long-time members of the community, and/or those who had children in the School District, had a strong desire to see the two entities work together, after a history between the School District and City Council some on the committee considered rocky. The members of the ACAC understood the School District's need for additional gym space. However, the committee also recognized that it needed to look out for the needs of the entire community. The ACAC did not include in its set of alternatives presented at the second open house any of the iterations the School Board had presented to them, because they did not meet the needs of the broader community. In addition, the ACAC relied on the opinion of the architect with whom they were working, who indicated that the school site being proposed was too small for the type of facility the ACAC was considering. However, the committee did vote to include amulti-site alternative, which included a partial build-out at N.E.I. or Huset Park and contribution towards a second gym at the high school. This alternative gained the least support from the public of the four alternatives presented. Before the ACAC presented a recommendation to the City Council, the School Board submitted plans to the Board of Education to build one gym. It cited the reason that costs would be higher if it delayed a decision any longer. Pool Although there was continued public support for a pool, and some members of the ACAC promoted the idea, it was not included in the final recommendation. The committee needed to balance cost concerns with the needs of the community. While the ACAC felt there was need for a pool in the community, both for family use and for recreational swimmers, it felt it could not afford to include an amenity that could be expensive to build and operate. In addition to eliminating the pool, the committee also forced itself to make difficult decisions on other amenities to be down-sized or eliminated. YMCA The YMCA of Metropolitan Minneapolis expressed an interested in partnering with the City on a combined YMCA facility and community center months after the public participation process was underway. A survey of both Columbia Heights residents and residents of surrounding communities was completed over the summer of 2007 and presented to the City Council in October 2007. The news that the YMCA was interested in partnering with the City created a buzz on the committee because members felt a partnership would be positive for the City. The YMCA has an excellent reputation, has programs that offer great benefits to community members and has extensive experience in running community facilities. While the ACAC supports working with the YMCA, it acknowledges that the issues is between the YMCA and the City Council and is not part of the committee's charge. Public Safety News that the City was considering a new public safety building to replace the existing police and fire stations came even later in the public participation process than did the YMCA. The ACAC was concerned by how this project would affect a proposed activity center and how it should be taken into account as the committee moves fonr~ard with a recommendation. The committee was reminded that a new public safety building is just one of many variables and that it cannot appropriately factor in every variable that comes to light throughout a process spanning a year and a half. The City Council is gathering information from many different sources to help it make the myriad decisions for which it is responsible. The ACAC is providing a piece of information - a recommendation on an activity center and site - and its charge to do so remains. Referendum Throughout the public participation process, the ACAC received comments from some who either were curious as to whether there would be a referendum, or wanted a referendum. When asked about the possibility of a referendum, committee members reminders inquirers that the issue was for the City Council to decide, not the ACAC. 7 APPENDIX B Activity Center Advisory Committee (ACAC) Members 1 Aurora Johnston 2 Barb Goodwin 3 Barb Miller 4 Bob Lyndes 5 Bob Surbrook 6 Brian Harper 7 Catherine Vesley 8 Christina Dobon 9 Denise Gordon 10 Denny O'Connell 11 Dorothy Penate 12 Gary Mayer 13 Gerry Herringer 14 Jeff Bahe 15 Jessie Hart 16 Joe Wolney 17 John Gordon 18 Joseph Sturdevant 19 Kathy Olson 20 Kay James 21 Kay Mayer 22 Keith Windschitl 23 Kelly James 24 Kim Trombley 25 Leland Stauch 26 Liz Bray 27 Lynette Thomson 28 Mark Corless 29 Marsha Stroik 30 Matt Townsend 31 Michael Laabs 32 Shively Barnes 33 Steve Craig 34 Ted Landwehr (Co-Chair) (Co-Chair) 7 APPENDIX C Chronology of Activity Center Process March 2006 -Council appoints members of community to the Activity Center Advisory Committee (ACAC) and inaugurates public participation process. April 2006 -ACAC begins meeting: first task is to study the need for new community and recreational space in the community. June 2006 -ACAC chair presents the communications plan, which will guide the public participation process, to the Council and briefs the body on the upcoming open house. The purpose of the communications plan is to "organize communications and public participation for the Columbia Heights Activity Center study process." July 2006 -ACAC hosts first open house to communicate the public participation process and the need. Accomplishes first and second phases in this City Council-initiated process. September 2006 -Committee prioritizes a list of amenities and sites that would meet the needs of a diverse community. October 2006 -ACAC chair presents prioritized sites and building amenities to the City Council. November 2006 - BKV Group, the architectural firm retained by the committee to help with a feasibility study, meets with the ACAC. December 2006 -Committee refines the list of amenities to be included in building alternatives to be presented to the public at the second open house. February 2007 -Committee agrees upon three packages of amenities and two sites, i~.E.i. and Huset Park, to bring to the public for feedback. February 2007 -ACAC chairs review public participation process with the City Council and present three alternatives to bring to the public at the second open house. School Board members in attendance express desire to build gym space for District students; consequently, Council invites School Board to present gym expansion plan for the high school at the next ACAC meeting. April 2007 -School Board presents plan for additional gym and recreational space at the high school. ACAC votes not to include the Board's proposal in-full; instead, votes to add a fourth alternative to the list, which would include partially contributing to the cost of a second new gym at the high school, but would follow through with one of the three previously- agreed upon alternatives at a separate location. July 2007 -ACAC hosts second open house; presents four alternatives on two sites, Huset Park and N.E.I., to the public. August 2007 -Begins process of modifying alternatives to include most important amenities, while lowering the capital cost. September 2007 -ACAC agrees upon a preferred alternative to present to the public at the third and final open house. September 2007 -updates Council on recommended alternative. November 7-ACAC presents recommended alternative to the public for feedback. November 14 -ACAC meets to discuss open house and agrees on final recommendation. December 17 -ACAC presents final recommended alternative to the City Council. 1 1 ~ ~~° F ~j r ° ,~ I ° ,--, ~~ ~ ~6 W ~~ l..ii ~ ~.i; ii d ~ i ~.4 ~ `~'<..~'J a/ a ~. `~'... k HF ~ I'.. V". I i .:.~ 6~ .,.~ NEI Site site Acqui4ion' Gty Ovmed U day; Currrnt Zoninv. H--I Multiple Family Residential DisVict Land Use f~pplicatipn. Conditional Usc Fe:rm¢ 3U daps Setback>: Frrnri I S feet Comer Side IS feel Slde IU feet Rcv IU feet P. dung 2W :tall: provided 200 sells reconvnended e~'`:iliZ ~IdC,~i~lll~ LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 Progrznr Adminisvetion, 1,032 :f Gars+ng c. IHCCtin~.pue 3,300:i rV,im Cage. 3.H7U :! Lod-ai 61fd0 sf field House 't4,S00 sf Fitnes. bSDD -f Common Sup{nrt ipace. 3.S0C :i Eciddi~iZ Ser.~icc 2.°'-D ~ I•let W Gros; FacWr 25'.+: 16.So1 sf Tota: 6G,2?3 sf sya~,a. v, mop BKV ~Itt; ulclt7fi3111 pry PP`' Estimated Tax Impacts -Bond Issue for Capital Costs Columbia Heights Activity Center Term of Debt: 29 Years Type of Property Taxable Market Value Net Cost (After Cash) $10,557,163 100,000 55 150,000 83 194,500 107 Residential 200,000 110 Homestead 225,000 124 250,000 138 275,000 151 300,000 165 350,000 193 $100,000 54 Commercial 200,000 116 Industrial 300,000 188 400,000 259 500,000 331 750,000 510 1,000,000 688 The figures in the table are based on taxes for the bond issue only, and do not include tax levies for other purposes. Tax increases shown above are gross increases, not including the impact of the state Property Tax Refund ("Circuit ~~ Breaker) program. Many owners of homestead property will qualify for a refund, based on their income and total property taxes. This will decrease the effect of the debt levy for many property owners. ,~~ .~.n ._ ~-~ 1`7 ;' c 1x n `CAL ~ r~ -i OWNER: City of Columbia Heights PROJ: Columbia Heights Activity Center G R O U P LOC.: Columbia Heights, Minnesota TITLE: Prelimina Pro ect Bud et Pro'ect Bud et: Recommended Buildin S ace Pro ram 5-Se -07 TOTAL SQ FT -NEW 66,243 Now Facilit COST! TOTAL COST S SUB TOTA DESCRIPTION BUILDING SF F ~ ~~~ ~ • LEGAL, FISCAL & ADMINISTRATIVE $0 LAND AQCUISITION $0 SOIL BORINGS $20,OOD SURVEY $15,000 i~ ~ ~ ~• ~ • • SITE AND BLDG. CONSTRUCTION -NEW $10,930,095 SITE AND SLOG. CONSTRUCTION - REMOD. ~ ~ ~ '. ~ EXTERIOR POOL $0 EXTERIOR ICE SHEET $0 SKATEBOARD PARK $0 ~ ~ A/E DESIGN FEES $783,307 REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES $39,165 PLAN REVIEW FEES 8~ PERMITS $27.875 SPECIAL INSPECTIONS AND TESTING 527,325 CITY SAC/WAC {ALLOWANCE ASSUMING NO SPECIAL CITY ASSESSMENT) $119,237 iii FURNITURE ALLOWANCE $209.000 CONCESSIONS EQUIPMENT ALLOWANCE 540,000 FITNESS/POOL EQUIPMENT ALLOWANCE $125,000 LAUNDRY EQUIPIv1ENT ALLOWANCE 515,000 FF&E CONSULTANT FEES $17,000 ~ i~~ • • TECHNOLOGY ALLOWANCE $100,000 SECURITY ALLOWANCE $70,000 SOUND REINFORCEMENT SYSYEMS 550.000 PROJECT (5%) $628.950 FINANCING COSTS $178,307 INVESTMENT EARNINGS $0 ~ ~ : - "' - . • (X~ Cl L~ 1 ~X ~'r' , - Columbia Heights Activity Center SUMMARY TOTALS Columbia Heights, Minnesota 21-Feb-07 Recommended Building Space Program BOARMAN KROOS VOGEL GROUP DEPARTMENT: SUMMARY TOTAL Ammenifies Area in Square Feet COMMENTS O~ces and Administration Gathering & Meeting Space Child Care Pool and Locker Rooms Field House Fitness Common Support Spaces 1,032 3,300 3,870 4,000 24,900 6,500 3,990 Subfofal, Deparfinenfs 47,592 Shared Areas Building Servies 2,090 Subtotal, Shared Areas 2,094 Total Usable SF 49,682 Net to Gross Factor 16,561 -z-~,-~:~L EXISTINGIPROJECT ED GROSS 66,243 TIDE CITY ®~ C®I~TJl~BIA I~EIGI-~TS ~~TBLIC SAFETY CENTEl~ STUDY Iss~iecl fo~• Presentation to Co~incil l~®~embe~ 30th 200 BUETOW & ASSOCIATES AN ARCHITECTURAL SERVICE COMPANY ~ 1 2345 RICE STREET SUITE 210 ST. PAUL MINNESOTA 55113 7ElEPFIONE (6511 4fl3-6701 ~_-____~ TAE CITY ®F C®I.~JI1/ISIA TIEIGTI'TS PIJ~L~C SAT'E'T~ C~t~1T'E~ 5'T~JDY T'A~LE OF C®l~TEI~~'S Introduction/Methodology 3 Discussion of Existing facilities 4 Comparison of Police Departments of Similar Population 11 and Total Arrests facility Space Program 12 Site Studies fop• Public Sa#'etg~ facility 1~ Site Plan Option South of l~EI on 41st 17 Preliminary Budget Estimate South of ivEi on 41st 18 Site Plan Option at 47th and Central 19 Preliminary Budget Estimate for 47th and Central Site 20 Site Plan Option on I~EI site on 41st 21 Preliminary Budget Estimate for 1®TEI Site on 41st 22 Preliminary Schedule 23 Appendix: Existing Police and fire facility floor Plans 24 DUETOW & ASSOCIATES AN ARCHITECTURAL SERVICE COMPANY a 2345 RICE STREET SUITE 210 S7. PAUL PAINNESO'CA Fi5113 7ElEPHONE (6571 4F13-6709 -'~~ THE CITY ®F C®LZ7Ii~BIA IIEIG~ITS PUBLIC SAFETY CEI~ITEI~ ~TUI~Y II®TTR®DIJCTION I HETI-I®I?®L®GY In August of 2007 Buetoti~ and Associates was asked to investigate options for the relocation of the existing Police and Fire Depa--tinents to a new facilit}~. ~~'e met «~ith Cite Staff and re~~ie~~~ed existing and future space needs. We prepared, distributed, collected and revie«~ecl responses to surveys prepared by the staff as well as by depa>•rinent leadership. We met with user groups of both departments. Vde rode along with the police during a public safety work sluff. ti~%e reviewed the existing facilities and its current deficiencies. A space program of reduired spaces and staff was created for a potential Police and Fire facility. We developed several site plan options for a new facility. A budget estimate and schedule for the potential const>1lction work was also incli_ided in the study. Pane 3 BUETOW & ASSOCIATES AN ARCHITECTURAL SERVICE COMPANY j 23~SS RICE STREET SUI"CE 210 S'f. PAUL MII•INESOTA 551 i3 7E_LEPHONE (6511 483.6701 -_'~ TIDE CITY OF COLiJ1VIBIA ~IEIGIITS PUBLIC ~A~'ETY CEI~TTEIZ STUIDY I~ISCIISSIOI~ OP LISTING FACILITII~JS The existing fire station was constructed in the 1940's. The building was made into the City Hall with an addition in 1959 and also added onto in 1978. The mechanical, electrical and roofing systems were renovated in 1989. The cun-ent facility no longer meets the needs of die Police and Fire departments. The existing facility has the following deficiencies: Police Department Facility: T he Police Department is composed of twenty-seven sworn officers and other employees. The facility is too small for a department of this size. V~TOrlcing conditions do not meet current standards for a police department. The facility has no detention space. Prisoners are currently handcuffed to a bench in an exit cot•I•idor. No separation of prisoners is possible and evidence is contaminated between prisoners sharing the bench. Stories and information can also be shared bettiveen prisoners on the bench and this impedes investigations. This holding facilihr does not meet the standards of the Department of Corrections. Juvenile prisoners cannot be separated as required by the Department of Corrections. Civlhans, employees and officers unrelated to the detention activities pass tlu-ough the exit corridor and are at risk fi•aln prisoners. Prisoners are not ahva}'s handcuffed in this area since it is also the location of intoxilyzer testing. Prisoners occasionall}~ need to be physically restl•ained after they fail an intoxiIizer test. Scuffles occur in this public exit corridor. The potential for City liability within these spaces is very high due to the inadequate spaces and lack of separation of these disparate activities. A "sally port" is a secure garage that is used to move prisoners from the squad car into the department. The existing sally port is too small and too narrow to safely move prisoners into the facility because the squad doors can not be fiilly opened within the garage. in addition, this garage is being used for storage of office supplies. Further, this garage houses the evidence processing bench. Evidence processed within this garage could be challenged in court since evidence could be contaminated by other squads ol• employees within this garage. Evidence is usually processed within a separate relatively clean room - not a garage space. "171e sally port design only allows one vehicle. If a second vehicle arrives or the- prisoner is too large to gel out of the partially open car door within the sally port. the prisoner is transferred outside and then into the facility. Fami]y members or other associates of the in-custody prisoner can follow the squad to the station and interfere with the single Pa e 4 DUET0~4 ~ ASSOCIATES AN ARCHITECTURALSERVICE COMPANY ;~ 23A5 RICE STREET SUITE 210 ST. PAUL ,411NNESOTA 55113 TELEPHONE (6511 AD3-6701 --'~- TIDE CITY ®F COLUMBIA HEIGIiT~ PUBLIC SAFETY CENTEIa ~TUI~Y officer transferring the prisoner outside. The outside transfer also increases the chance of prisoner escape. Working spaces in the existing facility are inadequate or do not exist. We observed during one Friday evening blood evidence being tagged, computer records being entered and a meal being prepared at the same work station by tlu-ee different officers all at the same- time. This occurred within the existing squad room. It is required for police stations to have individual and separate room for lunch breaks, computer repot•ts, evidence processing, and squad meetings. Office spaces are inadequate. Currently 3 sergeants share a single work space in a 75 square foot office. Usually 2 sergeants share an office and each have their own work space. Three Corporals share a converted X18 square toot closet for an office. Often the corporals have been replaced by having more sergeants in the department. Corporals should have office spaces similar to Sergeants in case this organizational change is made in the fixture. Tnvestigatnr work spaces do not have acoustic separation. This limits the effectiveness of investigations because individuals being interviewed by investigators in the facility can be averheard and may overhear other investigators working ontlte same case and/or conducting phone interviews. The size and arrangement of the current police- station administrative office do not fimction for a department of this size. Storage spaces are overwhelmed and undersized. Changes ut police operations, State la~v and federal law require increased records-retention capacity. The increased volumes of records arc currently stored in the corridors, which ai'e a violation of fire. egt'ess code. Since the corridors are also used as a holding area, stored items are available for use as improvised weapons by those in custody. The Department of Corrections non-compliant vintage holding cell has even been transfartned into a file room. Storage space is a critical need of this police station but that need cannot be met in the current facilit}f. Onc conference room exists in the facility for hard interviews with suspects, soft intervietivs Lvilh child. ar adult victims. staff meetings, human resource issues, public conferences, collocation of witness repot•ts, and storage of office supplies. often when this space is full, work overflows into the Police Chiefs office and the cot7•idors. Additional meeting and- interview spaces are required for the police depatfinent to function well. f3UL-TO14 & ASSOOIATES 2345 RICE STREET SUITE 210 ST. PAUL PAINNESO'iA P~ AN ARCHITECTURAL SERVICE COMPANY 551'13 (651) 463-6701 TELEPHONE THE CITY OF COLdTIVII3IA HEIGHTS PUI3I..,IC SAFE~'Y CEN'T'ER STITT)X Evidence is handled in anon-linear process in many different spaces within the facility. Today evidence gathering is more regimented then in the past. Evidence brought to a facility is typically bagged and tagged in a clean environment to protect the evidence from. contamination and loss. 13ut this process is done at this current facility in the sally port garage or in the squad room/lunch area. Evidence is then stored or further processed vvithin an evidence room. Processing may i~lclude finger printing- or dtyutg blood evidence prior to delivery to a crime lab. This work is currently done. in a space that is about 12~ square feet. A department of this size usually has a tninimtnn of 720 square feet. R~Iost evidence needs to be stored far a minimum of 6 months to 2 years. Because some evidence related to murder or sexual assault must be stored forever under State la~v, the larger the room the better. Evidence handling and storage should be centralized into one larger location. Currently, police staff and department vehicles are stored in a public lot that is not secured. The vehicles are subject to vandalism, theft. tampering and sabotage. 1~'urther the storage of off-sluff vehicles is at the Public Worts facility several blocks away. It takes multiple officers off the street for periods of time to transfer cars between the police station and the public worts facility. A secure parking lot and garage facility is the solution to these deficiencies. The front lobby of the police station is not compliant with the Federal Americans with Disability Act or with the State Accessibility Code. This violation puts the department at risk for a federal law suit on disability. As a day-to-day practical manner, it leads to witnesses who can not manage stairs being interviewed in the public lower lobby where they can be overheard and intimidated by outsiders. The facility has a single toilet room. Thls single room is used for the staff, the public, men, women, in cuslady individuals, witnesses, victims, and DWI urine testing collection. An additional toilet facility is required. The male and female officers share a locker room and a unisex shower area. Beyond being uncomfortable for officers, this is a potential legal issue for the City. The space is cramped, inaccessible by State accessibilih,~ codes, and inadequate in size to function for more than t<vo or three officers at a time. ,t'ae6 DUC701'J & ASSOCtATES AN ARCI-IITECTUf1ALSERVTCE COMPANY 2345 RTC[ STREET SUITE 210 ST. PAUL h11MNESO'~A 55113 TELEPHONE (6511 483-8701 THE CITY OF COLUI~Z~IA HEIGHTS PUBIIIC SAFE'7["Y CEI~TEIt STUDY Fire DeparM~ent Facility: The apparahs bays are too small for the modern equipment. The doors into the bays a1'e too small for standard fire trucks and trucks must be ordered at special sizes aild at additional cost. Fridley and Saint Anthony Pu-e Department run in cooperation with Columbia Heights. This means that when the fire tntcks leave a station in any of the three cities, a tniclc from another city comes to the empty station and waits for a second potential call. Tlus allows faster response times for all tlu~ee Cities. `I1ie existing overhead doors at flYC station do not allow a single Saint Anthony or Fridley truck to enter the station and vvait. This deficiency could expand over time. They may wait outside, however on many days in Minnesota the weather does not allow trucks to remain outside for extended pet7ods because the water pumps may freeze. Fire response times are adversely effected by the overhead door sizes at the station. Turn out fire gear lockers are in the drive aisles of the fu'e tivclcs. The lack of proper clearance bet«~een the trucks and the lockers places firefighters getting dressed in harms way of the moving trucks. Also, the location of these lockers is sometimes in direct sunlight. whid~ shortens the life of the turn out uniforntis and egi.lipment. Tn addition the fain out gear is spread through out the facility and this creates additional cross ri•affic with the trucks and other firefighters. The apparatus bay exhaust systems do not meet current safety codes for ventilation. New exhaust systems would need to be installed to comply with cu>•~•ent mechanical codes. The u~odifications to the floor drains made during the additions to the space do not adequately remove the water from the floor of the apparatus bays. This leads to greater slip and fall hazards. Pure oxygen filling and storage for ambulance service is stored within the apparatus bay in violation of safety code. Pure oxygen needs to be stored in its own explosion-resistant room with e~ti~a ventilation. Breathing air fill stations foe firef ghters is filled and stared.. in the apparatus bay. it is strongly suggested that this mask cleaning, talric filling and. storage occur in a separate clean room. This helps keep the air that the firefighters breathe cleian. Pa e 7 flUETOW & ASSOCfATES AN Af~CFiITECTUFlAL SEFiVICG COhSPAN`! 2345 RIC:F STREET SUITE 210 ST. PAUL 611NNESOTA 55113 TELEPHONE f6511 463-6701 °~ THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS PI1BlLIC SAFFT~S~' CEI~'I'~IZ S'TUI~Y There are llo storage rooms within the Fire Department. Items are stored in the apparatus bays, within sleeping rooms, and even above ceiling tiles in the office spaces. Many of these storage techniques are code violations and create hazards for lire and egl•ess. The numbers of bedroom and work spaces are inadequate for the number of firelighters on duty and on staff. Bedrooms in the building do not have direct emergency egress to the exterior tluough a fire egress window. Additional firefighter sleeping rooms arc required with egress for the duty crews. t~ separate declicatecl lvork space is required for the duty crew. These spaces are shared with the paid on call staff which is a conflict when paid on call are on site fclr training and the duty ere«~ is sleeping at odd horns due to their fire call tlllllllg. The male and female firefighters share a locker room, a unisex toilet and a unisex shower area. Beyond being uncomfortable for officers. this is a potential Icgal issue for the City. The space is inadequate in size to function for more than t~vo or thl•ee lirefighters at a time. This area also doubles as the biological contamination cleaning area for firefighters. This contamination area should he separate ;i•om other areas of the facility and should be directly accessible form the apparatus bay. The existing kitchen's counter, cabinetry and equipment are worn and in need of replacement. The existing floor in the kitchen area is not level and is a trip hazard. Wiring within the above-ceiling plenum of the facility does not comply with cun-ent fire code. The watch room is used for a watch room, office space for paid on call offices, ~.vorlc space for explorers, meeting room, public blood pressure checking, and file storage. The provided space is inadequate for a department of this sire. The public should not he in the watch space as it interferes with operations. The watch room does not have direct vie~,vs into ali bays and the exterior apron area, which is one of the fimctions of a "watch" room. The existing fitness room is in the 1942 basement. This basement is often wet, lacks ventilation, and has had mold issues. The stair to this basement is uneven and does not meet code for safety or accessibility. P~ BUETOV! 8 ASSOCIATES AN ARCHI-fECTURAL SERVICE COPdPANY 2345 RICE S'fRFET SUITE 210 ST. PAUL FAINNESOTA 55113 TELEPHONE (f511 403-6701 ' THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER STUDY The office spaces are divided into many unconnected spaces. This leads to additional traffic through the small apparatus spaces and make communications behveen fire staff more difficult. The Training Roam ]aclcs the ceiling height for fire or police training because of the physical movements required for training. Storage for emergency operation, furniture, training equipment, explorers, volunteers, old uniforms, and some files are in the Training Room. The small Training Room is made smaller Uy all the storage within it. The Training Room is too small as currently configured. Parking for firefighters is across the street fi•otn the fu•e department. This location creates the potential for responding fire firefighters to be hit and injured by responding fire trucks or other sheet traffic. The heating and ventilating of the office space is controlled from the separate Commwnity Development offices. Tlus does not function well since the offices have different cooling and healing needs from Coimnunity Development. Many utilities within the 1942 facility need repair and updating, including the water and sewer limes which ai•e reportedly nat7•o~ving because of sediment collection over the years. The police and fire facility do not have a fire suppression system. A modern fire suppression and alarm system saves lives of the users and of firefighters. Fire departments often promote the installation of fire suppression syste>rr ~~vithin the city to help protect citizens and firefighters. The lack of a suppression system at the Fire Station makes the promotion of fire suppression systems hypocritical. Further many Cities have chosen to uistall fire suppression systems to avoid the indignity of having the fire station burn down. Department Cohesion We have observed that the Police and Fie Departments of Columbia Heights work together closer than any other department we have ever seen. This synergy is often strived for in other Cities. It would be unfortunate if this spirit of cooperation and efficiency of operation was lost in a new facility. Any ne~v facility should tale advantage of the shared spaces and. team approach of the deparhnents. 't'here are many spaces in a facility that could be shared including, but no! limited to, lobby spaces, public waiting, locker rooms, training spaces, kitchen spaces, lunch spaces, and fitness rooms. Pa c 9 DUETOLV & ASSOCIATES AN ARCFIITECfURAL SERVICE COMPANY 2345 RICE STREET SUITE 210 ST. PAUL FAINNESOTA :15993 TELEPHONE (6511 4D3-5701 _=~ THE CITY QF COLUMBIA ~fEIGHTS PIJSI.IC SAFETY CEI`ITEI2 ~'i[`~Tl)Y COT1CIrlS1Or1 Both depai•tnlents have outgro\vn their- current facilities. This gro\~~th has to do with expanded services and needs of both fire and police departments in the twenty first century. Safely, efficiency and productivity \vill increase in a ne\v properly-sized facility. i'<,ec l 0 SUETO4Y a A38OCfATES AN ARCHITECTURAL SERVICE COMPANY 2345 RICE STREET SUITE 270 ST. PAUL AfINNESQYA 55713 TELEPHONE (fi511 483-6701 THE CITX GF CGEI3M~IA HEIGHTS PI1I~~IC S ~EET~ CI+JI~IT~H STI1I~-~ CGMI'ISG~ GEC ~~IJICE ICI+JP'AI~`ri~IEI~TS AI~Ti~ SI~IIa~I~ PG~UII~TION ®R TGTAL ARI~STS It is often he[pfu! to make compal•isons with with similar police departments in the state. Tables antl data referenced be[o~v are from the State of Minnesota Department of Public Safety ~t-Iirrrzesotc~ C.'r•irrr~ hzfor•rnatiorr 2Qr7?. City Populat ion 2005 Departmznt Staff (fable 27) Combined Crime Rate (Table 12} Total Arrests (Table 16) Columbia Heights 18,79 24 t6,Q83. 147 AIIOIia 18,005 27 -9,731 649 Brooklyn Center 28,595 42 14,590 1380 Lino Lakes 18,9#9 28 4,491 358 Richfield 34,359 43 9,93G 1388 Satoh St. ['aul 19,861 25 10,040 770 _._ _ _ _ West St. Paul 19,G28 25 12,900 978 A compal-ison to other cities indicates that Columbia heights Police Department is a busy. hard worl~in; department. Compared to Cities of similar pc~l?tslatian Columbia I-Ieichts has more total arrests, Compared to Cities of similar total arrest, Columbia Heights has fewer officers. Crime from I~•1illneapolis Another pressure point on crime is the increase iIi sheet cameras in the adjacent City of Minneapolis. The Columbia Heigilts Police Department leas seen some increase in those whisking to perform criminal activity coining out of Minneapolis into Columbia Heights in order to avoid cameras. E3UET0~'l ?~ ASSOCIATES 23x5 FlICE STREET SUI7E 210 S7'. PAUL MINNESOTA 5113 Pace 11 AN ARC1iITECTURAL SERVICE COA4PANY ,~ TELEPHONE rss17 ar~3•e~oy '~ THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS PUBLIC SAI+ETY CENTER STUDY F'ACILI'TY SPACE PROG~2AlVT Size Sq uare Footage Space Description Shay°ed Spaces Waiting 12 ~ 15 180 Waiting Vestibule 7 ~ 8 56 Waiting Toilet Lnise~ 7 ~ 8 56 Police and Fire Lacke~stI'oilets 70 Y 30 2100 TrainingiEOC -Dividable 30 1 40 1200 EOC Storage 8 ~ 10 80 Training Table and Chair Storage 10 ~ IS I50 Training Kitchen Lunch Roam 1 ~ `~ 25 ~7~ Fitness 20 1 20 400 Server/Telephone Room 10 ~ 15 150 Janitor ~ a 10 50 Lawn!Site Maintenance 10 ~ 15 150 MechanicaUElectrical 25 x X10 1000 Stairs and Elevators (3 levels assumed) 1200 Tl~lain Cor-r•idors 11% 900 Exterior and Interior Wall areas 4% 350 Shared Space Total Area 8397 Pa~~e ! 2 E]UE7UW Fx AS50CrATES AN AFICHITECTURAL SERVICE COktPANY 2315 RICE STREE1" SUITE 2i0 ST. PAUL PAINW[SO'1'A 55113 TELEPHUN[ (8511 4ti3.6701 Tti~ CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS PUBLIC SAFETY CEl~TER STUDY FACILT'I"Y SPACE ~'H4~C1~ Staff Staff Size Square Footage. Space Descriptiolt 2008 ?018 PoliceDeltar°tment PoliceC}tief4ffee 1 1 12 x 20 12 2=}0 9b Cluefs Secretary 1 1 8 x Captain's Of17ce 1 1 10 x 18 180 Suport Services Srtpr..Office 1 t 10 L i2 120 Record Technicians 2 3 8 x 8 192 Community Policing Offiee 0 1 10 x 12 120 Sergeants/Corporals (2/office) h h 10 x 12 360 [nvestigatitre Secretary i 1 8 x 8 64 Investigators 3 ~- 8 x 12 381 Toilet Unisel 7 x 8 56 (7) Patrol Officer's Reports 13 [ 5 22 x 2~- S28 School Liaison Officer 2 2 8 :~ 12 t92 cso s[lared ofr~e 2 2 1a ~ 12 12a Worlc Room tvitlt Coffee 8 x lb 128 Explorer Office 10 ~ 12 } 24 Reserve Office 10 x 12 120 Secure File Roorn 3 x 16 128 [nto~c Toilet 7 x 8 Sb httoYilizet• 10 s l S 1 ~0 Boolcin~ 15 x 20 300 Garapc (18 cae)! Sally Polt/impound 60 x 125 7500 Visiting 5 x 14 70 ~ Holding Cells + Dayroom 24 x 32 7h8 Juvenile HoldingJCottferellce 10 x 11 110 Hard Interview/Conference 10 x 11 114 Release Vestibule 5 x 7 35 Family Waiting a Off Ulain Li36b~~ 10 x 14 100 Use of Force Storage -Off Training 10 ~ 15 150 Eti~idence Storage 24 x 30 720 l~vidence Process 8 x 10 80 Soft Interview 10 x l l 110 Video Record 10 x 5 ~0 Gwl Range (~1 lane) 15 x 84 1260 Armory and Gun Cleaning 9 x 10 90 Roll Call 12 x 16 192 1~'1a111 COrr'1C101'S 11% 1944 Extel'IOC and lntei'Ial' Wall f~feaS ~% 740 Police Tot:ll Staff & Oren 33 38 1`~~9J Page _ 13 RUETOW & ASSOCIATES AN ARCh11TECTURAL SERVICE COh1PANY ]~ 23A5 RIGS STREET SUITE 210 ST. PAUL `,4lNNESOTA 55173 TELEPFtONE (6511 463-6701 '~~ TFIE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER STUDY ~',~C1I.,IT~ SPAE;E PRC1~G~1~ Staff Staff Size Square Footage Space Description 2008 2018 hire Depar•tmeztt Fire Cliief~~~ I I t2 r 20 240 Assisianl Chief 1 1 10 s 18 180 Secretary 1 1 8 x 8 64 Inspection Glerlc 1 3 8 x 8 192 Full Time Duty Office (shares}) 6 7 10 x 21 210 Paid Calt/i:xplorelAssoc 01~: 21 30 10 x 21 210. Toilets Unisex 8 x 7 Sb Meeting, Rootn/Blood Preasure 10 x 10 100 Wot•I: Room with Coffee 8 x 16 128 Files 8 x 1G 128 Office Staff Coat Closet 2 x 6 I2 Duty Crew Bedroom {4) 7 x l0 230 Dttty CrP~v I~itli~iviug Urea 16 x 12 192 Watch/Itadio Room 9 x 18 162 Paid on Call Dayroorn 20 ~ 24 480 Lobby Historic Alco~~e 10 x 10 100 EMS Training Storage -Off Training 8 x 10 80 Apparatus - 513ay 72 x 94 b7fi8 Apparatus Single Toilet/Shower 7 x 10 70 aratus Lockers/ Tmnont Gear A 20 x 20 400 pp l•Iedieal Oxygen Fill and. Storage G x 8 48 Hose Tower 10 ~ 15 150 SCBA 10 x 12 120 Laundry 10 x 12 120 Work Room/Tool Crib 10 x 12 120 Apparatus Storage 10 x 20 200 Ivlain Corridors 11% 1400 Exterior and interior Wall ~tr•Pas 4°,~0 500 mire Total Staff ~i Ar•ea 31 43 1271fl Total I3ttilding Area 38706 Pa!=e l4 t7UE i'UlJ ft ASSOCIATES AN ARCHITECTURAL SERVICE COMPANY 23x5 RICE STREET SUi7E 210 S7. PAlll d,11NNESO7A 55113 TELEPHONE !6511 4f33-8701 !~ THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS PUBLiC SAFETY CENTER STUDY SITE STLI~IES ~`(II~ I~I.I~LIC S~~ET~' FACILITX Tlu•ee sites were studied far this report. Tvro of the sites were found to be viable options far the facility. The first site option is located south of the old NT;I site on 41st Avenue between Jackson Street and Van Buren Street. It is owr-ed b}~ the City. The site is currently occupied b}r 7 residences and a church. This site has good access to Centt-al Avenue by ~vay of the controlled intersection at 41st and Central. The site is relatively flat. Future e~cpansion is easilq possible on site if public parking would be moved into the Gity ramp and an addition would be built on the public lot. However, the facility as sized in this study should-meet the needs. of the department for many years. The Community Center can be built north of 41st Avenue as proposed in the Community Center study. It is our understanding that t}vs is the prefet7•ed Community Center site for the potential pat•tncrship with the Y14tCA. The second site option is located east of Central Avenue and south of 47th Avenue. The site is cut~'ently occupied by S small apartment buildings and a retail strip malt. The site has great access to Central Avenue by way of the controlled intersection at 47th Avenue. The site has a severe slope and this scheme positions the butldirg to act as a retaiiung wall and entries on the north would be located a building stogy above those on the south. The tiro bays would he located on the ~,veste>n edge in order to be fiat. i~iittme espansian on this site would be by adding an upper story to the builclint;. However, the facility as sized in this study should meet the needs of the depal`tmeltt far many years. As with the first site, the Community Center could remain at the old NEI site, which is the prefet•>•ed site by the Y\/ICA. Some have eYpresscd that this area of the City would benefit the most from redevelopment. The third site option is the old N>JI site. One approach is to have the Public Safety Facility share the N>/I site with the fitll-sized YMCA Community Center. The YMCA and the Fire/Police traffic both prefer to be located on 41st and would have access to the conh•alled intersection at Central Avenue. In fact, it is our understanding that the YMCA only considers the site possible if they would be on 41st Avenue. This tivould move the Public Safety Center north to 42nd Avenue. This tvoulcl also regtti~~e a controlled intersection to be installed at 42nd for public safety traffic. This controlled intersection, if allowed by the County and State, could cost $500,000. Further, to provide enough parking for a YIWICA, additional Land would need to be purchased an Page I S ©UETOW & ASSOCIATES AN ARGHITECTURAI SERVICE COMPANY 2345 RICE STREt=Y SUITE 2t0 SY. PAUL MINNESOYA 55tt3 YELEPHONE fG511 403-87Qt ~- THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS PUBLIC SAFE1`Y CENTER STUDY Jackson Street. Future c~pansian on this site of the Public Safety Center would be by adding an upper stagy to the. building. A second approach is to locate the Public Safety Canter on ~llst Avenue near the cantralled intersection at Central Avenue_ That IocatioFr would Iunit the size of the CoFrununit5r Center to a "pattial build-out" format E2 gymnasiums and- no pool). A thircl approach is the location of the Community Center at Husct Parlc and using the ~€EI site only for the Public Safel}= Center. If the Community Center's size is reduced or if it is moved to another site, the 1~1EI site becomes a better site for the Public Safet~r Center. The first site option sotrth of ~llst is recommended. Although the second site OptlOtt 3t 17th 1taS b4'tter tiCSillFltty~aCCeSS fratiz Central. ,4venue its potential redevelopment by private enterprise may be more valuable to the City. The third site option on the NEI site naF't'ows the Community Center's future options on etpansion and- parkin; but provides a good location for the Public Safety Center. Paee t6 3UETQ4Y ~ ASS©CIATES AN ARCHITEGTItRAL SERVICE COh1PANY ]~ •_'395 RICE STREET SUITE 210 ST. PAUL UINNESOTA 55153 TELEPHONE (6511 483.6701 a~ ~'F-~E CI'I`~' Off' COi,UI~~3IA ]EIEI~I3['T~ ~U~LI~ ~A~'E'T~ ~Ei~TE~ ~'~'TJ~Y ~I'TE PI~A~d ~PTI~?l~I ~~Il~~ ~~ E~ ~~ 415' ..s., ~ `-•`,' :_ ~- ,_~ ,f ' - ~~~- i~ _ _ ~_ ~`" ~ - I ~~ ,r ~~` ~~'~ ~ i •.•_ ~ k~ _, ;~ r '` iii+• _. .s J .BFw.,~~ .. ~` . ~ ~,k~ f. ~., t' C ~ C ~ C ~ c ~~I__i~I~I PUL~LIC ISJtRi' ~ -< -, -- i Pcnl ~ FlEID 111 I HOVOE I' 1 ~ i ~ i ' _ ._ P~orogeo ,Ld coairaurnrY aE4 CEJJTk~R winless 1 ` --- runuc nmur ~ _ ~ onnl.awD ~ ~~ `_ ~ _ 4 4''1 ` .. t s~ ~ .- ~' p. '°~ iN `~ ~. N ' ~. .- V ~~ r ~ i f ~ ~1! e~<<e rs ~~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ T~ s 11 ~ - '!` ~:~~. ~ . ~. , 1 ,~ I ~ V~ 5 rr ~~ _~ '~ ~ ~, r~ f _ ~ ~ r ti r ~ ~- ~~ ~~ r ~r . r' x z;'. ~~- . + ~s f F ~!. ~' 4, ,.~ #, Q ++ ... C V r ~, 1 .r '~ i ~: ~ ~~r. ~. 7 ~• J+~ .,.r ~~~~~ i~ DUETOiN & ASSOCIATES AN AJiCMITECTUEaAL SEflVIC[ COtiF'ANY '~ 2345 RICE STREET SUITE 210 ST. PAUL JdINNESOTA 55113 TELEPHONE (6511 483.6701 THE CITY aI+4 CO-IJITIVIBIA HEIGHTS FTJIIEIC SAFETY CEl~TTI~R STT~7DY PREILIl~~III~IAIZ'S~ ~I~I)GET ESTIMATE SGI.TTH ®~' NEI +~1~ 41ST SITE sq~t~lt•e Footage Uesc-•iption SF S/SF ___ -- - .-- _ -- Site Acquisition Costs and Site Demolition/Clean Up To be determined l.y t11c CiT;• Estimated Construction Costs Pulice and Fire Shared Spaces 8397 5210 S1.7L3.370 Police Station Office Areas (0099 5210 52.120.790 Police Station Garage Areas 7500 St41 $1,060,778 Fire Station Office Areas 5942 5210 51,24?,820 Fire Station Apparatus Areas 6768 5141 5957,242 X7,150.000 5800,000 Site iVork 57ao,oao Rtrniturz Data Technology and Telephone 5600.000 Soil Borings, Testing, ['rafessional fees acrd Reimhursabies $700,000 Construction Contingency 5600,UU0 Public Safety Project Costs 510,550,000 These potential baildine and site development costs are. u:lsed upon preluninarydesien The above information is based Ilan 2007 Fstimated Costs. Faec i 8 f3UETOti~ & ASSOCIATES AN ARGHITECTURAL SERVICE C04fPANY t3AS C11C,T= S71-iL"LT SUIT[ 2'0 S~r. PAUL tAINFJESOTA ~ia11s 1"CL[:Pf-IC)tJE (G5S1 AfJ3-G7p1 'TFIE CITE C~ COI.,UMBIA ~EI~IIT~ PUBLIC SAFETY CE1~~TEI~ STIJD~Y SI'I'E PI..~~t`1 QPT~O~T ~.'~ 47TI-I AIotI3 CENTRAL, ~ ~ ~ _ ~ , ~ *~ -~ 47th Ave ~' ', ' ! if ! ~ ~; I '? ~ j' .~ >-"~1 '~ ~ ,,,~ ~} ; .r ~ r ~ PZpfiOSPDPU~UC81tF£TYGBPlTK^ _ ' "' s ss ~ ~ ~~~e~i?'~ ~ ~ r ' _ -; r ' sscuncu rnruurrc ~ _ ' ` l ~ornnces -~ .~ lv ~f ~~,'' - 4 ~.} f i - T s ~' r ! ~ ..1 ~. WW/ ~ ~• _ y , S~ 7 Fem.. ~ ~ ... ~~r~i _ '1~6 - ,~ , , ~ U ;~~ T .'ice A L ~ ~` ~ ~ - j, ~ i r ~ TT ~ / ':~s~ ~ 3` I .•..~. ~: • • ~' Y `'s - ~ 46th Aver • .t c`~~ '~ .fig 't r ~ j ~ - ~ ~~ a ~~ i ~ ~ C s. Pa~ BUETOPI S ASS9CIATES AN ARCSi1TGOTURAL SERVICE COMPANY 2345 RICE STREET SUITE 210 ST. PAUL MINNESOTA SCi113 PELEPh1ON6 (8511 483.6701 THE CITE OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS PUBLIC SA~E'~Y CI~JI'~iTER ~TEI~~' PREIa~10~[II~IAR.~ BIIIIGET ESTIMATE FOIZ ~7TffI AI~I~ CEI~TItAL SITE: Cast T~,s#ima#e BA ~~723 Square Footage 13esc~~i~tion SF S/SF Siia Acquisition Costs and Sito I'icmulition,'Cleart Up To be determined by the Cih' Estimated Construction Costs Police and Fire Shared Spaces 3397 521p 31.763,370 Police Station'lffiee Areas !0099 5210 52,120;790 PoliceStatiouGarageAreas 7500 bf41 $I,06D,778 Fire Siation Qftlce Areas 5942 5210 51,247,820 Firc Station Apparatus Aroas 6768 5141 5957.42 57,150,000 5300,000 Site R'orl; Furniture 5700,000 Data Technology and Telephone 5600'000 Snil Borings. Testing, Professional Fees and Reimbursahles 5700,Ot10 Construction Contingency 5600,000 F'ttbiic Safety Pt•oject Costs 510,550,000 These potential building and site development cosYS are based upon Preliminary Design. The above information is eased upon 2D07 Estimated Costs. Paae 20 nUETQ\'~ & ASSOCIATES AN ARCHITECTURAL SERVECE COMPANY { ZS•t ~i RICc STREET SUITE 'L ~in S'f. PAUL MINNESOTA 55113 TFLer~t~o NF ln'511. ~B3-670i. -~-~ TAB CITY OF COLUMBIA AEIGHTS PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER STUDY >SI'I'E PLt~N (~~~'~(~N Q~ l~d~I SITE. GN 4I~T iaµy/~ ' {-4i S Li 42nd Ave • - - ff . ~'~` ~' `~ ~ 1 1 ~ . t ~~ , __ cc. ~w•;r .- c:nos ` ,T, ~ A R ~ ~ !:i i .. - ~-- _ ~ _ ~~ ~ _ . ,« r cC - -~ ~-~<- ~~ ~~i~llill4~~ili~ii 1'i it ~ ~' ,p c ~. ~~ ~: ~~=~.~ Gl Ti 1 -,_i I I I I f -I I I I I I~ -~ '(, ~ U ~ ~cui t t s~cua_a • :~' ~ , r _ / .`._ - ~ I FSO?9~iDFU9ctt: PI3_C1YS f- ~ - =•.'R r 7w f1Fr'TY OT`IF.R ~ J 1 ,~~_ t ~ r ~ ~~ ~~ ~ z i BUETUYl & A$SUCIATES AN AFlCHlTECTURAL SERVICE COh1PANY _J <9d5 R1C@ STREET SUITE 210 Si. PAUL :4iiNNESU~i'A 5113 't'~LkFHONE (6511 1133-6701 ~'9 ~" ~. Y/11~~. ~ THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS PUALiC SAFETY CF,NTER STUDY PRELI1~IIloIARY BiII)GET I+1STI~TE FOI2 I~EI SITE ®Id1~ 41ST Cost Estimate Descriptio-r SF S/SF BA #0723 Square Footage Site Acquisition Costs and Site DemolitionlClean.Up To be determined by the Cit)~ Estimated Construction Costs Police and Fire Shared Spaces 5397 $210 51,763,370 Police Station Office Areas 10049 $2 l0 S2, [ 20,790 PoliceSlatioiTCiarage;~reas 7500 $14[ S1,060,77S Fire Station Office Areas 5912 $2l0 S1,2~17,320 Fire Station Apparatus Areas 6768- $}~#I $957?~12 $7,150,000 Site \t~ark 5800.000 Furniture $700,000 Data Technology and Telephone $600,000 Soil-Borings, Teslin„ Professions( Fees andlieimbursables $700,000 Construction Contingency $600,000 Public Safety Project Costs SIO,SSO,000 These potential building and site development costs are based upon Prelinrinaty Design_ The above information is based upon 2007 Estimated Costs. Page 22 DUETOW & ASSOCIA7E5 AN ARCHITECTURAL SERVICE COMPANY j 2345 RICE STREET SUITE 210 ST. PAUL FAINNESOTA 55113 TELEPHONE (6511 483-6701 THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER STUDY PREI~IIVIIIVARY SCHEI~UI,E PROPOSED PUBLIC SAFETI' CENTER SCIIEDULE Design -Schematic and Design De~lelopment January 200& Bid Document Preparation March 2008 DOCLlI7lentS t0 BlCldel'S June 2008 Receire Bids July 2008 Construction Begins Order Materials f~ugust 2008 Consh•ucti~n Complete August 2009 Owner Move In September 2009 t'aee 23 BUETO\V & ASSOCIATES AN ARCHITECTURAL SERVICE. COMPANY .~a®~.s~ 2345 RICE STREET SUITE 210 SL PAUL MIPINESOTA 55113 'TELEPHONE lfi511 483.6701 ~s. THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER STUDY APPEl`TT}IX. EXIS'T'ING POLICE ANI~ FIRE FACILITY FLQ()R PLANS ~il°C Z~ BUEZO~V & ASSOCIATES AN ARCHITECTURAL SERVICE COMPANY F~_~ 2345 RfCE STREET SUFTE-210 ST. PAUL tAINNESpTA 55113 TELEPHONE (6511 4D3.6701 L ia5 s noaz M1u+-~ ct7utr+~rrr ~ VTi Eft M1GOR NN-PCVCE D'_-~FffR.'~lT TO: Mayor and City Council Members FROM: Robert Streetar, Community Development Director DATE: 29 October 2007 SUBJ: Public Safety and Community Center /YMCA The purpose of this memorandum is to assist the Council in making decisions regarding the construction of a public safety facility and community center or YMCA; specifically to put these decisions in the context of the City's financial capacity and the cost to the homeowner. The memorandum presents six development scenarios that contemplate the construction of a public safety facility and community center or YMCA at the same or different locations. These scenarios include the estimated construction cost, costs related to acquisition, demolition, relocation etc, and the cost to the homeowner. The scenarios are based upon input from the City Council, the activity center advisory committee (ACAC), and the YMCA community survey. Definitions For discussion purposes the following terms are defined: Communitv Center means the building program the ACAC is presenting to the public for comment at the third open house on November 7th. The center is a 66,243 square foot facility and includes three gymnasiums, locker rooms, walking track, fitness studio, concessions area, large meeting room with kitchen and stage, children's play area and patron child care. Total estimated cost is $14,457,163, with the entire cost paid by taxes and membership fees. Modified Communitv Center means the Community Center, less the childcare space, gathering space and one gymnasium, leaving two gymnasiums. The modified center is a 35,000 square foot building with an estimated total cost of $10,000,000, with the entire cost paid by taxes and membership fees. YMCA means a 49,100 square foot facility that includes a fitness center, locker rooms, multipurpose space, office and meeting space, and two gymnasiums with a walking track and a pool. The total estimated cost $12,000,000. This scenario contemplates the City using cash and bond proceeds to up front the construction costs, with the YMCA paying 33% of the cost of construction via a lease, and the City paying the remaining 66%. This is a similar arrangement the YMCA has with the cities of Elk River and Andover. • The Public Safety Facility means both a police and fire station in a 38,706 square foot building. The facility includes 17,599 square feet allocated for the police department, 12,710 square feet allocated for the fire department and 8,397 square feet of shared space. Total estimated cost is $10,550,000, with the entire cost paid by taxes. • City General Obligation Bonding Limit means $28,000,000 for pay 2008. This is the maximum the City can borrow. Scenarios The following are six scenarios for the City Council to discuss: Scenario #1 -Public Safety Facility ~ 47th & Community Center ~ NEI This scenario locates the public safety facility at the southeast corner of 47th and Central Avenues and the community center at NEI. The total estimated cost to construct both facilities is $31,960,191. This includes $10,550,000 to construct the public safety facility, $14,457,163 to construct the community center and approximately $6,953,028 of acquisition, demolition, relocation and other associated costs. After the reduction of $4,000,000 in cash, the amount the Council appropriated for the community center, the amount to be financed would be $27,960,191. The table below shows the City property tax paid between 2008 and 2015. The "property tax" is the tax paid based upon a 3% per year increase in the budget and not building anything. The "debt portion" is the additional property tax paid for the public safety facility and community center. This amount is based upon bonding for $27,960,191 over 30 years at 5%. 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Property Tax* 777 826 842 852 900 964 1033 1,132 Debt Portion 0 123 163 209 210 215 259 243 Total Property Tax 777 949 1005 1060 1,111 1,179 1,292 1,375 '`Property tax based on a home with an estimated market value of $200,000 that appreciates 5% annually, and after the market value homestead credit and regular property tax refund are applied. Scenario #2 -Public Safety Facilit~(a~ 47th & YMCA ~ NEI This scenario locates the public safety facility at the southeast corner of 47th and Central Avenues and the community center at NEI. The total estimated cost to construct both facilities is $29,503,028. This includes $10,550,000 to construct the public safety facility, $12,000,000 to construct the YMCA and approximately $6,953,028 of acquisition, demolition, relocation and other associated costs. After the reduction of $4,000,000 in cash, the amount the Council appropriated for the community center, the amount to be financed would be $25,503,028, with the YMCA paying 33% of the annual debt service. 2 The table below shows the City property tax paid between 2008 and 2015. The "property tax" is the tax paid based upon a 3% per year increase in the budget and not building anything. The "debt portion" is the additional property tax paid for the public safety center and community center. This amount is based upon bonding for $27,960,191 over 30 years at 5%. 2008 2009 2010 Property Tax'` 777 826 842 Debt Portion 0 123 152 Total Property Tax 777 949 995 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 852 900 964 1033 1,132 182 183 187 229 212 1,034 1,083 1,151 1,261 1,343 '`Property tax based on a home with an estimated market value of $200,000 that appreciates 5% annually, and after the market value homestead credit and regular property tax refund are applied. Scenario #3 -Public Safety Facility C~ 41St & Community Center ip7, NEI This scenario locates the public safety facility on 41St avenue, south of NEI and the community center at NEI. The total estimated cost to construct both facilities is $28,940,623. This includes $10,550,000 to construct the public safety facility, $14,457,163 to construct the community center and approximately $3,933,460 of acquisition, demolition, relocation and other associated costs. After the reduction of $4,000,000 in cash, the amount the Council appropriated for the community center, the amount to be financed would be $24, 940,632. The table below shows the City property tax paid between 2008 and 2015. The "property tax" is the tax paid based upon a 3% per year increase in the budget and not building anything. The "debt portion" is the additional property tax paid for the public safety center and community center. This amount is based upon bonding for $24,940,632 over 30 years at 5%. 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Property Tax* 777 826 842 852 900 964 1033 1,132 Debt Portion 0 102 140 187 189 193 235 218 Total Property Tax 777 928 982 1,039 1,089 1,157 1,267 1,350 "Property tax based on a home with an estimated market value of $200,000 that appreciates 5% annually, and after the market value homestead credit and regular property tax refund are applied. Scenario #4 -Public Safety Facility @. 41St & YMCA ~ NEI This scenario locates the public safety facility south of NEI on 41St avenue and the YMCA at NEI. The total estimated cost to construct both facilities is $26,483,460. This includes $10,550,000 to construct the public safety facility, $12,000,000 to construct the YMCA and approximately $3,933,460 for acquisition, demolition, relocation and other associated expenses. After the reduction of $4,000,000 in cash, the amount the 3 Council appropriated for the community center, the amount to be financed would be $22,483,460, with the YMCA paying 33% of the annual debt service. The table below shows the City property tax paid between 2008 and 2015. The "property tax" is the tax paid based upon a 3% per year increase in the budget and not building anything. The "debt portion" is the additional property tax paid for the public safety center and community center. This amount is based upon bonding for $22,483,460 over 30 years at 5%. 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Property Tax* 777 826 842 852 900 964 1033 1,132 Debt Portion 0 102 130 160 161 165 169 187 Total Property Tax 777 928 972 1,012 1,062 1,129 1,202 1,318 *Property tax based on a home with an estimated market value of $200,000 that appreciates 5% annually, and after the market value homestead credit and regular property tax refund are applied. Scenario #5 -Public Safety Facility (~ NEI & YMCA C~ Huset Park This scenario locates the public safety facility south of NEI on 41St avenue and the YMCA at Huset Park. The total estimated cost to construct both facilities is $23,250,000. This includes $10,550,000 to construct the public safety facility, $12,000,000 to construct the YMCA and approximately $700,000 for acquisition and other associated expenses. After the reduction of $4,000,000 in cash, the amount the Council appropriated for the community center, the amount to be financed would be $19,250,000, with the YMCA paying 33% of the annual debt service. The table below shows the City property tax paid between 2008 and 2015. The "property tax" is the tax paid based upon a 3% per year increase in the budget and not building anything. The "debt portion" is the additional property tax paid for the public safety center and community center. This amount is based upon bonding for $19,250,000 over 30 years at 5%. 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Property Tax* 777 826 842 852 900 964 1033 1,132 Debt Portion 0 79 106 137 138 141 145 160 Total Property Tax 777 906 948 989 1,038 1,105 1,178 1,291 *Property tax based on a home with an estimated market value of $200,000 that appreciates 5% annually, and after the market value homestead credit and regular property tax refund are applied. Scenario #6 -Public Safety Facility C~ NEI & Modified Community Center C~ NEI This scenario locates the public safety facility and the modified community center at NEI. The total estimated cost to construct both facilities is $21,250,000. This includes $10,550,000 to construct the public safety facility, $10,000,000 to construct a modified community center and approximately $700,000 for acquisition and other associated 4 expenses. After the reduction of $4,000,000 in cash, the amount the Council appropriated for the community center, the amount to be financed would be $17,250,000. The table below shows the City property tax paid between 2008 and 2015. The "property tax" is the tax paid based upon a 3% per year increase in the budget and not building anything. The "debt portion" is the additional property tax paid for the public safety center and community center. This amount is based upon bonding for $17,250,000 over 30 years at 5%. 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Property Tax* 777 826 842 852 900 964 1033 1,132 Debt Portion 0 79 115 160 162 165 169 187 Total Property Tax 777 906 957 1, 012 1, 062 1,129 1,202 1, 319 tax based on a home with an estimated market value of $200,000 *Pro ert that apprec iates 5% annually, and after the market p y value homestead credit and regular property tax refund are applied. Summary The City is considering building a public safety center, and a community center possibly in partnership with the YMCA. There are six different scenarios to consider. Staff seeks the following direction. Are there any scenarios Council does not want to pursue? Which scenario or scenarios does Council want to pursue? Are there scenarios not listed that Council wants to pursue? 5 SCENARIOS SUMM ARY SCENARIO #1 PUBLIC SAFETY @ 47'h COMMUNITY CENTER (a) NEI SCENARIO #2 PUBLIC SAFETY @ 47th YMCA na NEI USES PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING $10,550,000 $10,550,000 SITE PREPARATION ACQUISITION $5,217,450 $5,217,450 DEMOLITION $236,000 $236,000 RELOCATION $1,199,576 $1,199,578 LEGAL $100,000 $100,000 FINANCIAL $100,000 5100,000 CONTINGENCY $100,000 $100,000 OTHER 50 SO SUBTOTAL $6.953.028 $6,953,028 TOTAL $12503.028 517.5o3.o2a COMMUNITY CENTER or YMCA 514,457.163 $12.000.000 TOTAL 531.960.191 S29 b94.028 i SOURCES CASH ", u~. )~~'1 ($4000000) AMOUNT CITY MUST BORROW __27.560. i °U ~S25.503.u281 MAXIMUM CITY CAN BORROW $28,000,000 528,000,000 Average Annual Tax Increase $203 $181 SCENARIO #3 PUBLIC SAFETY @ 41s' COMMUNITY CENTER (a7 NEI SCENARIO #4 PUBLIC SAFETY @ 41s' YMCA a~NEI SCENARIO #5 PUBLIC SAFETY @NEI YMCA na HUSET PARK SCENARIO #6 PUBLIC SAFETY @NEI MODIFIED COMMUNITY CENTER @NEI $10,550,000 $10,550,000 $10,550,000 $10,550,000 $2,768,250 $2,768,250 $0 $0 $145,500 5145,500 50 $0 5719,710 5719,710 $0 50 $100,000 5100,000 SO 50 $100,000 5100,000 50 SO $100,000 $100,000 5100,000 $100,000 $0 50 $600.000 5600.000 $3.933.460 53,933,460 5700.000 5700,000 $ &14 4 3 $94.483,4E0 $].1.250.000 S.] 1..25Q.000 $14.457.163 $12.000.000 512.000,000 510,000,000 $28.240.&23 $26.483.460 $23.254.004 $21.250.09.0 ~;4,C~J o~~~~) ~ vvi,~,u~"'i !:4 ull0 r)i;~i ~ 4 ~~~ G~~~) fS24.940.53<1 522,483,E°-~ 519250.OC~:?1 ~S172500~ $28,000,000 528,000,000 $28,000,000 $28,000,0001 $181 $153 $129 $146 6 470 U.S. I3anl: Plata ~I' Offices in 200 South Sixth Street ~ a ® Minneapolis Minneapolis, MN 55402 s' (612) 337-9300 telephone Saint Paul (Ci12) 337-9310 fax • SC. ClOUd h¢p://~nvw.hennedy-gnven.com C H .4 R T E R E D ~rmativc Action, Equal Opporttutiry );rtip(oycr STF.PHL''N J. BUBUL Afiorney at Law Direct Dial {612) 337-9228 Email: sbubulCkennedy-graven.com August 1, 2007 Robert Sireetar Community Development Director City of Columbia Heights 590 40th Avenue NE Columbia Heights, MN 55421-3835 RE: Financing of Public Safety Facilities and Community Center Dear Bob: You indicate that the City of Columbia Heights is contemplating the construction of new police and fire facilities (the "Public Safety Facilities"} and a community center (the "Community Center"). I will refer to those projects together as the "Facilities." You asked me to describe the options available to the City to finance the Facilities. The four options are described below. 1. General Obligation Bonds uuder City Charter The City could issue bonds for both Facilities under Section 72 of the City Charter, which provides in relevant part: Bonds maybe issued by four-fifths vote of the council without the previoars c~pprovcd of the voters of said city, but subject to the referendum powers of the people, for .. . new construction, ...for the purchase or construction of needful public buildings, . . .and for all purposes which may be authorized by the State of Minnesota. (emphasis added) The bonds must be authorized by ordinance, and voters have 30 days after the date of publication of the ordinance to initiate a referendum on the ordinance authorizing issuance. A petition under must be signed by registered voters equal to ten percent of the total vote at the last regular municipal election, or 700 signatures, whichever is greater, If a timely petition is filed, the City must hold a special election within 30 to 4~ days after the action of the council to call the election {and under state law, notice of the special election must be sent to the County Auditor at least 53 days before the election). The ordinance authorizing the bonds is approved if a majority of the voters voting on that question approve. 315517v1 SJB CL162-31 Robert Streetar August 1, 2007 Page 2 of 3 Whether or not submitted to referendum, the bonds would be subject to net debt limits under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 475. Those limits currently allow outstanding obligations in a maximum amount of two percent of taxable market value in the City. Many bonds are exempt from the debt limit, including those secured in part with special assessments and tax increments. Also, the omnibus tax bill approved in 2007 included an increase in the Chapter 475 net debt limit to three percent. However, the governor vetoed that bill and it is unclear whether that provision will be introduced in the 2008 session. 2. Capital Improvement Bonds (Public Safety Facilities Only) The City could also issue bonds for the Public Safety Facilities (but not the Community Center) under Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.521. The procedures are similar to the City Charter procedures in some respects, but with these key differences: a. The bonds may be approved by a three--fifths vote of the Council (rather than four- fifths under the charter). b. A petition for referendum requires voters equal to five percent of the votes cast in the City in the last general election {compared to 10% or 700 voters under the Charter). c. The City must approve afive-year capital improvement plan, and hold a hearing on the plan and issuance of the bonds. d. The annual debt service on all capital improvement bonds issued under Section 475.521 may not exceed .16 percent of taxable market value in the City. Capital improvement bonds are also subject to the statutory net debt limit described above. Given all these limitations (and no advantages other than a lower City Council voting requirement), there is no apparent reason why the City would issue bonds for the Public Facilities under Section 475,521 rather than under the City Charter. 3. Lease Purchase Revenue Bonds by EDA The City could also finance both the Facilities through lease purchase financing, using the same structure now expected for financing of the City's municipal liquor stores. Under the Iease-purchase structure, the City leases the real estate on which the Facilities will be built to the EDA (under a document referred to as a "ground Iease"). The EDA technically owns the Facilities, and leases them bacl: to the City for a stated period under a lease-purchase agreement (referred to as a "Iease"}. Under the lease, the EDA assigns to the City the responsibility to construct, operate and maintain the Facilities. To finance construction of the Facilities, the EDA issues reverure bonds payable solely from the lease payments made by the City to the EDA. At the end of the lease period (i.e., when the bonds are paid), the City will have title to the entire Facilities (land and buildings). 315517v1 SlB CL162-31 Robert Streetar August 1, 2007 Page 3 of 3 The bonds are not general obligations of the EDA or the City-they are revenue bonds secured only by lease payments made by the City to the EDA. The EDA's rights in the lease are typically assigned to a bond trustee, so all lease payments are actually made to the trustee for the benefit of bondholders. A (cey feature of the lease is that it must contain a "non-appropriation clause." This means the City must have the right to stop appropriating funds and terminate the lease at the end of each year. If that right is ever exercised, the City would relinquish the property to the trustee fox the bonds. Investors purchase the bonds with the risk that this termination might occur, and that no subsequent tenant may be found who will pay enough rent to cover debt service on the bonds. This risk is considered small, since the City is unlikely to terninate the lease and lose the Facilities. However, because the bonds are not secured by the City's full faith and credit, they carry a slightly higher interest rate compared to general obligation bonds. If the amount of the lease exceeds $1,000,000, the lease counts as "debt" for purposes of the City's net debt limit, similar to both general obligation options described above. (Note that there is an exception to this rule for the lease related to the liquor stores, as that lease-purchase transaction will finance arevenue-producing facility.) 4. Referendum The City could also submit the bonds for both Facilities to the voters, by simple majority vote of the Council. The bonds must be approved by the majority of persons voting on that question. State law requires the ballot to contain this phrase in all capital letters and hold-face type: "BY VOTING YES ON THIS BALLOT QUESTION, YOU ARE VOTING FOR A PROPERTY TAX INCREASE." Under current law, the tax levy to pay debt service must be levied against the market value of property in the city rather than tax capacity. This means that residential homestead and most apartment owners would pay a larger amount for voter-approved bonds than for general obligation bonds issued under the Charter or Section 475.521 (if no petition for a referendum is filed) or for the lease-purchase scenario. (The "tnarlcet value levy rule" for voter-approved bonds was repealed in the 2007 omnibus tax bill, but as noted above, the bill was vetoed and the prospects for this provision in 2008 are uncertain.) I hope this letter provides the guidance you and Council members were seeking. If you have further questions on these matters in my absence, please contact Andy Pratt at 612-337-9212. Ve 1y yours, ~~ Stephen J. Bubul SJB c: Andy Pratt Marls Ruff Bill Ellite 315517v1 SJ13 CL162-31 THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER STUDY IsslleCl foi' Presentation to Coilncil hto~ember 30th 2007 BUETOW & ASSOCIATES AN ARCHITECTURAL SERVICE COMPANY 2345 RICE S'I REE1' SUITE 210 ST. PAUL MINNESOTA 55113 TELEPHONE 16511 483-6701 THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS PUBLiC SAFETY CENTER STUDY TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction/Methodology 3 Discussion of Existing Facilities 4 Comparison of Police Departments of Similar Population 11 and Total Arrests Facility Space Program 12 Site Studies for Public Safety Facility 15 Site Plan Option Souti~ of NEI on 41st 17 Preliminary Budget Estimate South of NEI on 41st 18 Site Plan Option at 47th and Central 19 Preliminary Budget Estimate for 47th and Central Site 20 Site Plan Option on NEI site on 41st 21 Preliminary Budget Estimate foi• NEI Site on 41st 22 Preliminary Schedule 23 Appendix: Existing Police and Fire Facility Floor Plans 24 I>~~~ BUETOW & ASSOCIATES AN ARCHITECTURAL SERVICE COMPANY ~~~ 2345 RICE STREET SUITE 210 ST. PAUL MINNESOTA 55113 TELEPHONE (6511 483-6701 .-~_ THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER STUDY INTRODUCTION /METHODOLOGY In August of 2007 Buetow and Associates vvas asked to investigate options for the relocation of the e~cisting Police and Fire Departments to a nett' facility. \~r'e met ~vitli CitS~ Staff and reviewed elisting and future space needs. We prepared, distributed, collected and reviewed responses to surveys prepared by the staff as well as by department leadership. We met with user groups of both departments. V1e rode along with the police during a public safety work shift. We reviewed the etiisting facilities and its current deficiencies. A space program of rcduircd spaces and staff was created for a potential Police and Fire facility. We developed several site plan options for a new lacility. A budget estimate and schedule for the potential construction work was also included in the study. Paee 3 BUETOW $ ASSOCIATES AN ARCHITECTURAL SERVICE COMPANY _~ 2345 RICE STREET SUITE 210 ST. PAUL MINNESOTA 55113 TELEPHONE (6511 4D3-670t --.r,~~ THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS PUH~.IC SAFETY CENTER STUDY DISCUSSION OF EXISTING FACILITIES The existing fire station was constructed in the 1940's. "I'he building was made into the City Hall with an addition in 199 and also added onto in 1978. The mechanical, electrical and roofing systems were renovated in 1989. The current facility no longer meets the needs of the Police and Eire departments. The existing facility has the following deficiencies: Police Department Facility: The Police Department is composed of twenty-seven svvorn officers and other employees. The facility is too small for a department of this size. V~~orlcing conditions do not meet current standards for a police department. The facility has no detention space. Prisoners are currently handcuffed to a bench in an exit corridor. No separation of prisoners is possible and evidence is contaminated between prisoners sharing the bench. Stories and in[ormation can also be shared between prisoners on the bench and this impedes investigations. This holding facility does not meet the standards of the Department of Corrections. Juvenile prisoners cannot be separated as required by the Department of Corr•cctions. Civilians, employees and officers unrelated to the detention activities pass through the exit corridor and are at risk from prisoners. Prisoners are not ahvays handcuffed in this area since it is also the location of intoxilyzer testing. Prisoners occasionally need to be physically restrained after they fail an intoxilizer test. Scuffles occur in this public exit corridor. The potential for City liability within these spaces is very high due to the inadequate spaces and lack of separation of these disparate activities. A "sally port" is a secure garage that is used to move prisoners from the squad car into the cleparlment. The existing sally port is too small and too narrow to safely move prisoners into the facility because the squad doors earl not be firlly opened within the garage. in addition, this garage is being used for storage of office supplies. Further, this garage houses the evidence processing bench. Evidence processed wrthm tills garage could be challenged in court since evidence could be contaminated by other squads or employees within this garage. Evidence is usually processed within a separate relatively clean room - not a garage space. 1 he sally port design only allows one vehicle. If a second vehicle arrives or the prisoner is loo large to get out of the partially open car door within the sally port. the prisoner is transferred outside and then into the facility. Family members or other associates of the in-custod}~ prisoner can follow the squad to the station and interfere with the single ', P~ BUETOW & ASSOCIATES AN ARCHITECTURAL SERVICE COFdPANY 2345 RICE STREET SUITE 210 ST. PAUL MINNESOTA 55113 TELEPHONE (6511 483-6701 '_ THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER STUDY officer transferring the prisoner outside. The outside transfer also increases the chance of prisoner escape. Working spaces in the existing facility are inadequate or do not exist. We observed during one Friday evening blood evidence being tagged, computer records being entered and a meal being prepared at the same work station by tl>1-ee different officers all at the same time. This occurred ~vithi-t the existinc squad room. It is required for police stations to have individual and separate room for lunch breaks, computer reports, evidence processing, and squad meetings. Office spaces are inadequate. Cun•ently 3 sergeants share a single work space in a 75 square foot office. Usually 2 sergeants share an office and each have their own work space. Three Corporals share a converted X48 square foot closet for an office. Often the corporals have been replaced by having more sergeants in the department. Co-porals should have office spaces similar to Sergeants in case this organizational change is made in the ti-ture. investigator work spaces do not have acoustic separation. 'i'bis limits the effectiveness oI' investigations because individuals being inte-viewed by investigators in the facility can be overheard and may overhear other investigators ~vorlcirrg on the same case and/or conducting phone interviews. The size and arrangement of the current police station administrative office do not function for a department of this size. Storage spaces are overwhelmed and undersized. Changes in police operations, State taw and Federal law require increased records-retention capacity. The increased volumes of records arc currently stored in the corridors. which are a violation. of fire egress code. Since the corridors are also used as a holding area. stored items are available for use as improvised weapons by those in custody. The Department of Corrections non-compliant vintage holding cell has even been transformed into a file room. Storage space is a critical need of this police station but that need carmot be met in the current facilit}r. One conference room exists in the facilit}• for hard interviews ~~•ith suspects, soft interviews with child or adult victims. staff meetings, human resource issues, public conferences, collocation of witness reports, and storage of office supplies. Often when this space is full, work overflows into the Police Chiefs office and the corridors. Additional meeting and interview spaces are required for the police department to function well. ~ Page 5 BU[TOW & ASSOCIATES AN ARCHITECTURAL SERVICE COMPANY 2345 RICE STREET SUITE 210 ST. PAUL PAINNESOTA 551i3 TELEPHONE (6511 483.6701 ~- THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER STUDY Evidence is handled in anon-linear' process in many different spaces within the facility. Today evidence gathering is more regimented then in the past. Evidence brought to a facility is typically bagged and tagged in a clean environment to protect the evidence from contamination and loss. But this process is done at this crrrrent facility in the sally port garage or in the squad room/lunch area. Evidence is then stored or fiu-ther processed within an eviclenee room. Processing may include finger printing or drying blood evidence prior to delivery to a crime lab. This work is currently done in a space that is about 12~ square feet. A department of this size usually has a minimum of 720 square feet. Most evidence needs to be stored for a minimum of 6 months to 2 years. Because some evidence related to murder or seYUal assault must be stored forever under State law, the larger the room the better. Evidence handling and storage should be centralized into one larger location. Currently, police staff and department vehicles are stored in a public lot that is not secured. The vehicles are subject to vandalism, theft, tampering and sabotage. further the storage of off-shift vehicles is at the Public Works facility several blocks away. It takes multiple officers off the street for periods of tune to transfer cars between the police station and the public works facility. t1 secure parking lot and garage facility is the solution to these deficiencies. The front lobby of the police station is not corrrpliant witl3 the federal Americans with Disability Act or with the State Accessibility Code. This violation puts the department at risk for a federal law suit on disability. As a day-to-day practical manner, it leads to witnesses who can not manage stairs being interviewed in the public lower lobby where they can be overheard and intimidated by outsiders. '171e facility has a single toilet room. This single room is used for t{rc staff, the public, men, women, in custody individuals, witnesses, victims, and DWI urine testing collection. An additional toilet facilit}~ is required. The male and female officers share a locker room and a anises shower area. Beyond being uncomfortable for officers, this is a potential legal issue for the City. The space is cramped, inaccessible by State accessibility codes. and inadequate in size to fitnction for more than t~vo or three officers at a time. BUBTOW & ASSOCtAT[S AN ARCFIITECTURAL SERVICE COMPANY ?345 RICE STREET St11TE 21D ST. PAUL MINNESOTA 55113 TELEPHONE (Fi511 AB3-6701 +~ THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS PUBLIC SAFETY CE1~ITER STUDY Fire Deparhnent Facility: Tllc apparatus bays are too small for the modern equipment. The doors into the bays are too small for standard fire trucks and trucks must be ordered at special sizes and at additional cost. Fridley and Saint Anthony Fire Department run in cooperation with Columbia Heights. This means that when the fire trucks leave a station in any of the three cities, a h•uclc from another city comes to the empty station and waits for a second potential call. This allows faster response times for all three Cities. "I~he existing overhead doors at the station do not allow a single Saint Anthony or Fridley truck to enter [he station and wait. This deficiency could expand Dyer time. They may wait outside, however on many days in Minnesota the weather does not allow trucks to remain outside for extended periods because the water pumps may freeze. Fire response times are adversely effected by the overhead door sizes at the station. Turn out fire gear lockers are in the drive aisles of the fire trucks. The lack of proper clearance behyeen the trucks and the lockers places f refighters getting dressed in harms way oC the moving trucks. Also, the location of these lockers is sometimes in direct sunlight, which shortens the life of the turn out uniforms and equipment. In addition the turn out gear is spread through out the facility and this creates additional cross traffic with the trucks and other firefighters. The apparatus bay exhaust systems do not meet current safety codes for ventilation. New exhaust systems would need to be installed to comply with current mechanical codes. The moilifications to the floor drains made during the additions to the space do not adequately remove the water from the floor of the apparatus bays. This leads to greater slip and fall hazards. Pure oxygen filling and storage for ambulance service is stored within the apparatus bay in violation of safety code. Pure oxygen needs to be stored in its own explosion-resistant room with extra ventilation. Breathing air fill stations for firefighters is filled and stored in the apparatus bay. It is strongly suggested that this mask cleaning, tank filling and storage occur in a separate clean room. This helps keep the air that the firefighters bl'e~illle i'It:all. :~ BUETOW & ASSOCIATES AN ARCHITECTURAL SERVICE COMPAVY #_ 2345 RIC:F STREET SUITE 210 ST. PAUL h11tJNE50TA 55713 TELEPHONE (6511 483-6701 THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER STUDY There are no storage rooms vvithin the Fire Department. Items are stared in the apparahs bays, within sleeping rooms, and even above ceiling tiles in the office spaces. Many of these storage tecltrtiques are code violations and create hazards for fire and egress. The numbers of bedroom and work spaces are inadequate for the number of firefighters on duty and on staff. Bedrooms in the building do not have direct emergency egress to the exterior tlu'ough a fire egress window. Additional firefighter sleeping rooms arc required with egress for the duty crews. A separate dedicated work space is required for the duty crew. These spaces are shared with the paid on call staff which is a conflict when paid on call are on site for training and the duty crew is sleeping at odd hours due to their fire call timing. The male and female firefighters share a locker room, a unisex toilet and a unisex shower area. Beyond being uncomfortable for officers, this is a potential Icgal issue for the City. The space is inadequate in size to function for more than two or tlu•ee firefighters at a time. This area also doubles as the biological contamination cleaning area for firefighters. This contamination area should he separate ti•om other areas of the facility and should be directly accessible fot7n the apparatus bay. The existing kitchen's counter, cabinetry and equipment are worn and in need of replacement. The existing floor in the kitchen area is not level and is a trip hazard. Whine within the above-ceiling plenum of the facility does not comply with current fire code. The watch room is used for a watch room, office space for paid on call offices, work space for explorers, meeting room, public blood pressure checking, and file storage. The provided space is inadequate for a department of this size. The public should not be in the watch space as it interferes with operations. The watch room does not have direct views into all bays and the exterior apron area. which is one of the functions of a "watch" room. The existing fitness room is in the 1942 basement. This basement is often wet, lacks ventilation, and has had mold issues. The stair to this basement is uneven and does not meet code for safety or accessibility. Pa c 8 BUETOW & ASSOCIATES AN ARCHITECTURAL SERVICE COMPANY -;~ 2345 RICE STREET SUITE 210 ST. PAUL MINNESOTA Ei5113 TELEPHONE 16511 483-67Q1 ..~ THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS PUI3LiC SAFETY CENTER STUDY The office spaces are divided into many unconnected spaces. This leads to additional traffic through the small apparatus spaces and make communications beteveen fire staff more difficult. The Training Room lacks the ceiling height for fire or police training because of the physical movements required for training. Storage for emergency operation, furniture, training equipment, explorers, volunteers, old uniforms, and some files are in the Training Room. The small Training Room is made smaller by all the storage within it. The Tratnutg Room is too small as currently configured. Parking for firefighters is across the street from the fire department. This location creates the potential for responding fire firefighters to be hit and injured by responding fire trucks or other street traffic. The heating and ventilating of the office space is controlled from the separate Commwtity Development offices. This does not function well since the offices have different cooling and heating needs from Community Development. Many utilities within the 1942 facility need repair and updating, inchding the water and sewer lines which are I•epol-tedly narrowing because of sediment collection over the years. The police anti fire facility do not have a fire suppression system. A modern fire suppression and alarm system saves lives of the users anti of firefighters. Fire departments often promote the installation of fire suppression system within the city to help protect citizens and firefighters. The lack of a suppression system at the Fire Station makes the promotion of fire suppression systems hypocritical. Further many Cities have chosen to install fire suppression systems to avoid the indignity of having the fire station burn down. Department Cohesion ~Ve have observed that the Police and Fie Depa1-tments of Columbia Heights work together closer than any other department we have ever seen. This synergy is often strived for in other Cities. It would be ultfortunatc if this spirit of cooperation and efficiency of operation was lost in a new facility. :4ny liety facility should take advantage of the shared spaces and team approach of the departments. 'there are many spaces in a facility that could be shared including, but not limited to, lobby spaces, public waiting, locker rooms, training spaces, kitchen spaces, lunch spaces, and fitness rooms. BUETOW & ASSOCIATES AN ARCHITECTURAL SERVICE COMPANY 2345 RICE STREET SUITE 210 ST. PAUL MINNESOTA 55113 TELEPHONE (6511 483-6701 _ THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS PUBLIC' SAFETY CENTER STUDY Conclusion Both departments have outgro~~m their cui7-ent facilities. This gro~~~th has to do with expanded services anti needs of Uoth fire and police departments in the riventy first century. Safety, efficiency and productivity will increase in a new properly-sized facilit}'. ?aec 10 BUETO~1/ & A530CfATES AN ARGHiTECTURAL SERVICE COMFiudY _ 2345 RIDE STREET SUITE 210 ST_ PAUL MINNESOTA 55113 TELEPHONE (651) 483-6701 - TH_E CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIUHTS PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER STUDY COMPARISON OF POLICE DEPARTMENTS AND SIMILAR POPULATION OR TOTAL ARRESTS It is often helpful to make comparisons with with similar police departments in the state. Tables and data referenced below are from the State of Minnesota T)epartment of Public Safety ~l•lirrrrc.~.sata C(•iure Infor•rnatiorr 2©~J?. City Popular ion 2005 L~epartmerit Staff ('t'able 27) Combined Crime Rate (T'able I2) Total Arrests ("fable 16) Columbia Heights 18,579 24 16,08 3 1472 Anoka 18,005 27 9,73 ] 649 Brooklyn Center 28,595 a2 1 1,590 1380 Lino Lakcs 18,949 28 4,491 358 Richfield 34,359 43 9,936 1388 South St. Paul 19,861 25 10,040 _770 West St. Paul 19,628 25 12,900 978 A comparison to other cities indicates that Columbia lIeights Police Department is a busy, hard working department. Compared to Cities of similar population ColElmt?ia Heights has more total arrests. Compared to Cities of similar total arrest, Columbia Heights has fewer officers. Crime from Itilituieapolis Another pressure point on crime is the increase in street cameras in the adjacent City of Minneapolis. The Cohunbia Heights Police i~epartment has seen some increase in those ~vhishing to perform criminal activity corning out of Nlimleapolis into Columbia Heights in order to avoid cameras. ~~~,~~ i i BUETOW & ASSOCIATES AN ARCHITECTURAL SERVICE COMPANY _ 2345 RICE STREET SUITE 210 SL PAUL MINNESOTA 55173 TELEPHONE (6511 4A3.6701 I~ THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER STUDY FACILITY SPACE PROGRAM Size Square rootage Space llescriplion Shared Spaces Waiting 12 ~ IS 180 Waiting Vestibule 7 ~ 8 56 Waiting Toilet Lniseti 7 x 8 56 Police and Fire Locl:ets/Toilets 70 Y 30 2100 TrainingiEOC -Dividable 30 ~ 40 1200 EOC Storage 8 ~ 10 80 Training Table and Chair Storage 10 x I S I50 Training Kitchen Luncll Room I S :c 25 37~ Fitness 20 ti 20 400 Sewer/Telephone Rootn 10 x 15 150 ,Ialllt0l' S Y 10 SO La~'vm/Site Maintenance 10 ~ 15 150 hlechanicaUGlectrical 25 ~ CIO 1000 Stairs and Elevators (3 levels assumed) 1200 Main Corridors 11% 900 Etterior and Interior Wall Areas 4% 350 Shared Space Total Area 5397 ~~~z° t 2 BUETOW & ASSOCIATES AN ARCHITECTURAL SERVICE COMPANY 2345 kICE STREEI' SUITE 210 ST. PAUL MINNESOTA 55113 TELEPHONE (6511 403.6701 i= THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER STUDY FACILI'T'Y SPACE PROGRAM Staff Staff Sipe Square Footage Space Description 2008 2018 Police Department Police C net Ot -ce 1 1 12 ~ 20 240 Chiefs Secretar}~ 1 1 8 x 12 96 Captain's Office i 1 10 Y 18 180 Supoi•! Services Suer. Office 1 1 10 ~ i2 120 Record Teclinicia-is 2 3 8 s 8 192 Community Policing Office 0 1 10 s 12 120 Sergeants/Corporals (2/office) fi 6 10 ~ 12 360 [nvestigati~~e Secretary 1 1 8 x 8 64 ]nvestigators 3 4 8 ~ 12 384 Toilet Unisex 7 x 8 56 (7) Patrol Officer's Reports 13 15 22 x 24 528 School Liaison Officer 2 2 8 Y 12 192 CSO Shared Office 2 2 I 0 ~ 12 { 20 Work Room with Coffee 8 ~ 16 128 Gxnlorer Office I 0 x 12 120 Reserve Office 10 x 12 120 Secure File Room 8 x 16 128 Into~c Toilet 7 Y 8 56 1ntoYilizer 10 ~ 15 l ~0 Booking 15 ~ 20 300 Garage ((8 car)! Sally Port/[mpaund 60 x 125 7500 Visiting 5 ~ 14 70 4 Holding Cells -t- I)ayrornn 24 ~ 3?_ 768 Juvenile HoldingiColifereiice 10 s l 1 110 Hard Interview/Conference 10 ~ 1 1 110 Release Vestibule 5 ~ 7 35 T'amily Waiting -Off Ulain Lobby 10 x 10 100 Use of Force Storage -Off Training 10 s 15 150 E~~idence Storage 24 ~ 30 720 1/~~idence Process 8 Y 10 80 Soft Interview 10 x 11 110 Video Record 10 ~ 5 ~0 Gun Range (4 lane) 15 s 84 1260 Armory and Gun Cleaning 9 s 10 90 Roll Call 12 a 16 192 Main Corridors 11% 1900 Exterior and Interior Wall t~reas 4% 700 Police otal Staft & Area 33 38 17599 Pa ~e 13 BUETOW & ASSOCIATES AN ARCHITECTURAL SERVICE COMPANY ~= 2345 RICE STREET SUITE 210 ST. PAUL MINNESOTA 55113 TELEPHONE (6511 483-6701 ~ a ~ THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER STUDY ~AC1LiTY SPACE PROGRAM Staff Staff Size Square Footage Space Description 2008 2018 Fire Department Fire Chief 1 I l2 ~ 20 240 Assistant Chief 1 1 10 x 18 180 Secretary 1 1 8 x 8 64 hispection Clerk 1 3 8 x 8 192 Ful(Time Duty Ofrce (shared) 6 7 10 x 21 2l0 Paid Call/I:xplore/Assoc Ott'. 21 30 10 x 2I 210 Toilets Unisex 8 x 7 56 ivleeting RoomlBlood Pressure 10 x 10 100 Wort: Room with Coffee 8 x 16 128 Files 8 x 1G 128 Office StaffCoal: Closet 2 x 6 I2 Duty Crew Bedroom (4) 7 x l0 280 Duty Crew Kit(I,iving Urea 16 x 12 l92 Watch/Radio Room 9 x 18 162 Paid on Call Dayroom 20 x 24 480 Lobby Historic Alcove 10 x l0 100 EMS Training Storage -Off Training 8 x IO 80 Apparatus - _5 Ba}~ 72 x 94 G768 Apparatus Single Toilet/Shower 7 x 10 70 Apparahrs Lockers! Turnout Gear 20 x 20 400 Medical Oxygen Fill and Storage G x 8 48 Hose Tower 10 x 15 150 SCBA 10 x 12 120 I~~undt•y 10 x 12 120 Worlc Room/Tool Crib 10 x 12 120 Apparatus Storage 10 x 20 20U Main Cor'r'idors 11% 1400 Exterior and Tnterior• Wall Areas 4°fo 500 Fire Total Staff & Area 31 43 12710 Total Building Area 38706 P~~~r to FiUE'~OW fiC AS50CIA7ES AN ARCHITECTURAL SERVICE COMPANY _ 2345 RICE STREET SU17E 210 ST. PAUL MINNESOTA 55113 TELEPHONE (6511 483-6701 ~_ THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS PUBLIC SAFETY CEI~TTER STUDY SITE STUDIES FOR PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITY Tlu•ee sites tivere studied for this report. Two of the sites were found to be viable options for the facility. The first site option is located south of the old Nl :i site ~n 41st Avenue between Jackson Street and Van Buren Street. It is owned by the City. The site is currently occupied by 7 residences and a church. Tlus site has good access to Central rOvenue by ~vay of the controlled intersection at 41st anct Central. The site is relatively flat. Future expansion is easily possible on site if public parking would be moved into the City ramp and an addition would be built on the public lot. However, the facility as sized in this study should meet the needs of the department for many years. The Community Center can be built north of 41st Avenue as proposed in the Community Center study. It is our understanding that this is the prefel•1•ed Community Center site for the potential partnership with the Yl\-tCA. The second site option is located east of Central Avenue and south of 47th Avenue. Tlie site is currently occupied by S small apartment buildings and a retail stt•ip mall. 'hhe site has great access to Central Avenue by way of the controlled intersection at 47th Avenue. The site has a severe slope and this scheme positions the building to act as a retaining wall and entrees on the north would be located a building stol•y above those on the south. The fire bays would be located on the western edge il~ older to be flat. Future expansion on this site would be by adding an upper story to the building. However, the facility as sized in this study should meet the needs of the department for many yeat:s. As with the first site, the Community Center could remain at the old NEI site, which is the prefet•t•ed site by the YMCA. Some leave Cxpl'CSSCd tllat th15 area Of the Clt}' would benefit the most from redevelopment. The third site option is the old NEI site. One approach is to have the Public Safety Facility share the NEI site with the full-sized YMCA Community Center. The YMCA and the Fire/Police traffic both prefer to be located on 41st and would have access to the controlled intersection at Central Avenue. hl fact, it is our understanding that the YMCA only considers the site possible if the}~ would be on 41st Avenue. This would move the Public Safety Center north l0 42nd Avenue. This would also require a controlled intersection to be installed at 42nd for public safety traffic. This controlled intersection, if allowed by the County and State. could cost $500,000. Further, to provide enough parking for a YMCA, additional land would need to be purchased on Page I ~ BUETOW & ASSOCIATES AN ARCHITECTURAL SERVICE COMPANY _ 2345 RICE STREET SUITE 210 ST. PAUL MINNESOTA 55113 TELEPHONE (6511 483.6701 '_ THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER STUDY .Tackson Street. future c~pansion on this site of the Public Safety Center would be by adding an upper story to the building. A second approach is to locate the Public Safety Center on 41st Avenue near the controlled intersection at Central Avenue. That location would limit the size of the Cotntnuuity Center to a "partial build-out" format (2 gymnasiums and no pool). A third approach is the location of the Community Center at Husct Park and using the ~IEI site only for [he Public Safety Center. If the Community Center's size is reduced or if it is moved to another site, the NEI site becomes a better site for the Public Safety Center. The first site option south of 41st is recommended. Although the second site option at 47th has litter vi:;ibility/access from Central Avenue its potential redevelopment by private enterprise may be more valuable to the City. The third site option on the NEl site natro~vs the Community Center's future options on expansion and parking but provides a good location for the Public Safety Center. Page lG F3UETCW A ASSOCIATES AN ARCHITECTURAL SERVICE COMPANY ~~_ ?345 RICE STREET SUITE 210 ST. PAUL A~INNESOTA 55773 TELEPHONE (6511 483-6701 .~_ ~~~ THF, CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER STUDY .~r. ~r• _i,~tt,tl~l~1L/ ;: ,, ~~ ~~^:a ~ - _ - -r IC'' __ ~ T" ~ 1-I~ T- - PUH1.~ = I .. __ ARISIIID~ , _I -1Qfl SPACG3 , r. i_ ~C .;aiw~ „ ~ -- ~ --~ ~ I ~~ r ~~ - i~:. .~ I - - 1~ ~ i .~ ,F_ ~~ r ~~~. r`..H SITE PLAN OPTION SOUTH OF NEI ON 41ST F ~ IIII Il~li~ ,~ ~ ~ PuDUI: rnnrr q--.T.,_..,,~...~-.:.-•-n ~ i t POOL FIELD HOUSE i I PROPOSED corarnu>vlrv CEHTFsR F!lNE53 Pueuc ._- 1 - AD!31ti _ I OATHEAIHD 4'3 :~ ~ Ave I~RUPOS[O ~ PU~1.IC Sf,FETY CF.t 1'i f R ~. 4 ' ~ i ~ : } ~' r _ `'~ ., ~-' - ~, N - ,. -~ , • ~ ~~ r ' ~~ IsI*e~~*c ((IRIAAE~~7D7 99SN/1CES --~--- r I ~ ~~ -~ ~ f ~s ~ _ _ ~~ ~ r f l~~~ _ ~ ~~~ .. ~ _ ~ el ~ 1 ~,~ , ~~ ~ a~ iL1C-. :.. - ~ , ~ A~ - ~ c ~. V ~_--= ~ C t . ;s ~, ~: ~ 1 ~-~ ~ 1 f. ~ ~,~ ~+I ,'~ ~ ~ ~e - I _r Paee 17 BUETOW & ASSOCIATES AN ARCHITECTURAL SERVICE COMPANY 2345 RICE STREET SUITE 210 ST. PAUL MINNESOTA 55113 TELEPHONE (6511 483-6701 ~_ THC CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER STUDY PRELIMINARY BUDGET ESTIMATE SOUTH OF NEI ON 41ST SITE Description SF ~/SF Square footage Site Acquisition Costs and Site Demolition/Clean Up To be deterrnine<1 L•y the City Estimated Construction Costs Police and Fire Shared Spaces 8397 5210 5L763.370 Police Station Office Areas 10099 S210 52,120J90 Police Station Gaeage Areas 7500 5141 $1,060,778 Fire Station Office Areas 5942 5210 51,247,820 Fire Station Apparatus Areas 6768 S 141 5957.242 57,150,000 5800,000 Site Work 5700.000 Furniture Data Technology and Telephone 5600,000 Soil 3orings, Testing, Professional Fees and Reimbursables 5700,000 Construction Contingency 5600,000 Public Safety Project Costs 510,550,000 These potential building and site development costs are based upon preluninary design The above information is based u]xtn 2007 Estimated Costs. -~Pagc 18 BUETOIY & ASSOCIATES AN ARGHITECTURAL SERVICE COMPANY _-- ZJAS IIIGL 51HEE1 SU17E 2'0 ST. PAUL tdINNESOTA Ci(i11$ TELEPHONE (0511 493-67p1 ~~ r` ~___ THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER STUDY SITE PLAN OPTION AT 47TH AND CENTRAL r• ~~ -r ~ r ~V '~ .~-.,_• ~* -- 47th Ave .~~.. r :~ ~ ' ru3uc rnkkluo I I I I 2Y SPACES '( __I ~ , , paafiose~ na~L1c sAf~TY CQP~TER _:. " . ~ ~ ~~~,~- ! ~ ,. ~ ~; ~ i I, i l~ If i i I I l, Y~~~~~` ~; ~. . ~~ ~ ~ :,~ III ! iI -~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ , j"~ SECURFII PARI<IllG ~ ~`' .i ~: ,~ ~ 1 7D SPACE'S - •.- . - A ! { Q ~ • - W - ~ 4 L ~~ ~ lbL V ;y~ T s •.~ ~ _i ~ i f ~~ ` 1r •~~~_ •S yr' ~ .1~~~•~ ~ R ... .ilk-c - ~-~~ ~' ~. 46th Aver _ ~ •~ ~ ~. '.'- ` ~ .ii . ~~~, SUETOW & ASSOCIATES AN ARCfi1TECTURAL SERVICE COMPANY ?345 RICE STREET SUITE 210 ST. PAUL MINNESOTA 55113 TELEPHONE !6511 483.6701 ~~_ THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS PUBLiC SAFETY CENTER STUDY PRELIMINARY BUDGET ESTIMATE FOR 47TH AND CENTRAL SITE Cost T~.stimate BA #0723 Square Footage y~~~,a~t'~f~il~t3 SF $!SF Jite Auiuisition Costs and Site Demolition/Clean Up "t'o be determined by the Cih~ Estimated Consu action Costs Police and Fire Shared Spaces 8397 5210 51,763,370 Police Station office Areas 10099 5210 S2.t20,790 Police Station Garage Areas 7500 $141 $1.060,778 Fite Station Gftice Areas 5942 X210 S 1,247,820 Fire Station Apparatus Arras 6768 X141 S957,242 57.1 so,oao Site Vl'ork ~800.Ut)0 Furniture 5700,000 Data Technology and Telephone X600,000 Soil Burins, Testing, Professional Fees and Reimbursahles $700,000 Construction Contingency $600,000 Pabiic Safety Project Costs 510,50,000 These potential building and site development costs are based upon Preliminary Qesis. The above information is based upon 2007 Estimated Costs. Pace 20 BUETOW 14 ASSOCIATES AN ARCHITECTURAL SERVICE CQMPANY N~.~,,~~ 2345 RICE STREET SUITE 210 ST. PAUL MINNESOTA 55113 TELEPRQNE 16511 483-67tl1 ~_ THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER STUDY SITE PLAN OPTION ON NEI SITE ON 41ST 42nd Ave .. ~ ... ,. 4 ~~ r.. l~ i ~ ~> S ; ~ y * ~ Q ~ t ~ c V S ' ~ :~ F .,., !„ .~ R ;~ . .-, .~~. 41st Avg ~ t ~~ Paee 21 BUETOW & ASSOCIATES AN ARCH{TECTURAL SERVICE COMPANY ~~~ [345 MICE STREET SUITE 210 ST. PAUL MINNESOTA 55113 TELEPHONE (6511 483-6701 ~'~_ THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS PUBLIC SAFFTV CF,NTF,R STUDY PRELIMINARY BUDGET ESTIMATE FOR NEI SITE ON 41ST Cost ~stimttte BA #0723 Sc~u~re Footage ~rz~:~•t•~~i~aon SF S/SF Site Acquisition Costs and Site DemolitiotUClean Up 'To be determined b~• the City Estimated Construction Costs Police and Dire Shared Spaces 5397 $210 $1,763,370 Ponce Station Office Areas 10099 $210 S2,120,790 PoliceSlation('iarigeAreas 7500 $14f SI,OE0,778 Fire Station Office Areas 5942 $210 51.247,820 Fire Station Appa~~hts Areas 6768 $141 $957.242 $7,150,000 Site Work $800,000 Furniture $700,000 Data Technology and Telephone $600,000 Soil Borings, Testing, Professional Fees and Reimbursabtes $700.000 Construction Contingency $600,000 Public Safety Project Costs $10,550,000 These potential building and site development costs are based upon Preliminary Design. The above information is based upon 2007 Estimated Costs. Paee 22 BUETOW & ASSOCIATES AN ARCHITECTURAL SERVICE COMPANY _~~ 2345 RICE STREET SUITE 210 ST. PAUL MINNESOTA 55113 TELEPHONE (6511 483-6701 THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER STUDY PRELIMINARY SCHEDULE PROPOSED PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER SCHEDULE Design -Schematic and Design Development Janttaty 2008 Bid Document Preparation Marc112008 Docwnents to Bidders Tune 2008 Receive Bids July 2008 Construction Begins Order Materials August 2008 Construction Complete August 2009 Owner Move In September 2009 f aye 23 BUETO\Y & ASSOCIATES AN ARCHITECTURAL SERVICE COMPANY ~~ 2345 RICE STREET SUITE 270 ST. PAUL MINNESOTA 55713 TELEPHONE 16571 483.6707 ~_ I~ THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER STUDY APPENDIX: EXISTING POLICE AND FIRE FACILITY FLOOR PLANS ~O~C ~~ BUETOW & ASSOCIATES AN ARCHITECTURAL SERVICE COMPANY 2345 RICE STREET SUITE 210 ST. PAUL MINNESOTA 55113 TELEPHONE ffi511 403-6701 ' -~- waoc noonFw~-rcvice oewnnr~rt