Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 04/07/2009SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL 7 APRIL 2009 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, 7 April 2009, at 7:00 p.m., at the Frederick Tuttle Middle School, Dorset St. Members Present: M. Boucher, Chair; J. Knapp, M. Emery, S. Dooley, F. Murray Also Present: C. Hafter, City Manager; D. Gravelin, Assistant City Manager; Rep. H. Head; P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; Chief T. Whipple, Police Department; M. Beaudin, Planning Commission; C. Smith, S. Magowan, S. Dopp, K. Donahue, R. Arnold, D. Leban, J. Ewing, R. Hubbard, P. Mahoney, L. Deering, A. & A. Chaulk, S. Kennedy, J. Lebreque, D. Dubie, B. Stuono, R. Griffith, T. Barritt, P. Opferman, R. Greco, T & M. More, M. Lyons, E. Milizia, J. Kennedy 1. Police Facility Work Plan Flow Chart: Mr. Knapp showed a flow chart of the process to get a new Police facility to date. He said that tonight's agenda includes a needs assessment, statistics regarding and growth and police staffing needs, a detail of existing studies, a presentation by Chief Whipple, and a review of potential sites. Mr. Knapp also noted that the public outreach process will include information on the website, information packets distributed to organizations, and local/community meetings. The final goal will be a city public hearing on the proposed plan followed by a public vote. 2. Background of development of plan for new Police Facility: Chief Whipple reviewed the history of the effort to get a new Police Facility from the first committee formed in 2002 through a needs analysis and various plans, 2 defeated bond votes, the formation of a second committee in 2006, and the most recent site considerations. The Chief then showed a chart of statistics, including population numbers, Police staffing, civilian staffing, calls for service, arrests, traffic enforcement, school enrollment, and zoning permits from 1956 to an estimate for 2020. Chief Whipple then cited the shortcoming of the current facility including lack of safety/security, lack of privacy, inadequate space for technology, evidence and records storage, etc. He also showed a chart of other Police facilities in the State, including numbers of officers, square footage, square footage per officer, etc. The Chief noted that other Police departments do not have all the services that South Burlington has (e.g., youth services, crime prevention bureau, etc.). Chief Whipple then showed a building design which was conceived for the Calkins property but is adaptable to other potential sites. Spaces include: A. Public Space: 1. Meeting space (this was oversized to accommodate community needs; the Police Department would need about half of this space) 2. Kitchenette (which could be smaller) 3. Public rest rooms (could be smaller) B. Records Division: 1. Sized for growth, including access for the public to obtain copies of records. C. Evidence Storage: 1. Chief Whipple cited new regulations which require Police Departments to retain all evidence until a suspect/convicted person has died. D. "Found Property" Storage E. Interview Rooms F. Patrol Work Stations: 1. Includes space for officers in charge 2. Equipment storage 3. Roll call room G. Secure Area: 1. Secure garages 2. Area for prisoners 3. Maintenance bay 4. Weapons Storage 5. Animal cages 6. "Bulk" evidence 7. Interview rooms 8. Group holding areas 9. Rest room 10. Processing (fingerprinting, etc.) 11. Holding cells The upstairs area would contain: A. Administrative area 1. Includes space for potential future Deputy Chief 2. Conference space (the existing facility cannot now host meetings) 3. Lunchroom 4. Storage (uniforms, gun belts, etc.) 5. Physical training room 6. Lockers (Chief Whipple noted that it costs $4000 to outfit a Police officer, and uniforms and weapons cannot just be "left around") 7. Shower facilities B. Detective Unit: 1. Equipment storage (for surveillance, etc.) 2. Interview rooms 3. "Criminal investigation" area 4. Internet crime area 5. Archives (Chief Whipple cited the need to maintain information for long periods of time) 6. Weapon cleaning area 7. Armory Chief Whipple said that if the building is designed for 25 years, it will potentially be serving 67 people. A 12-year design would serve 54 people. Mr. Murray asked the difference in cost between the two. Chief Whipple said it would depend on the type of space. There is fewer saving with a conference room, for example. Mr. Murray said it is important to not build too small. Ms. Emery asked about the "life of a Police officer." Chief Whipple outlined the areas in which various types of officer's function: 1. Administrators - have their own desks 2. Detectives - work from a "work station," not a desk 3. Patrol officers - are mostly outside and don't have their own "inside space" 4. Youth officers - share space Ms. Emery asked the Chief to explain the need for 3 sally ports. Chief Whipple outlined the uses of each: 1. Lock up a vehicle to be searched (e.g., a vehicle involved in a bad accident) 2. Bring in prisoners in a safe environment 3. Maintenance bay The Chief noted that at present on a snowy night, vehicles have to be left idling outside so they are ready to go in case of a call. With the sally ports, a vehicle could be left inside, thus saving on fuel. Ms. Dooley felt they could get by with only 2 sally ports. She noted that Burlington has only 2. Chief Whipple said their people say that is not enough. Chief Whipple suggested giving them a total square footage and letting the Department decide on how to use it. Mr. Knapp agreed that if any cutting is to be done, the Police should decide what to cut. Mr. Murray said his question is how much is actually saved by reducing space, and how badly the city "will be cursed" in future years when the community has to spend even more to accommodate Police needs. Chief Whipple said if they were building from scratch, he would argue harder. With an existing building, he felt they can be more flexible. Mr. Hafter asked whether Youth Services could remain where it is now. The Chief said they could, but there is the potential that the building where they are would no longer be available and there wouldn't be room to accommodate them in the new facility. There is also the question of accountability on a daily basis or the potential need for one of those officers in an emergency. Mr. Hubbard said he wanted to be sure the city doesn't just go down the "short run." He felt the new Police facility would have to last a long time. He commended planning for 25 years out and noted that the cost could be double or more by the time the city is finished paying for the facility. He also cited the importance of sharing space, and felt that conference space could be used by many groups as could exercise space. He felt that all uses should be put together in City Center. Ms. Leban cited the amount of storage need and didn't feel that was a good use for the City Center. She felt that keeping Youth Services near the schools was a good thing. She also suggested the possibility of sharing functions with the Town of Williston. Mr. Donahue noted that with regard to square footage, some uses would be hard to change/expand in the future. Ms. Deering agreed and felt the Police needed three car ports. Ms. Chaulk cited the importance of getting the public to understand that the Police aren't asking for anything above their basic needs. Officer Chaulk of the Police Department said the Department is in crisis now, and morale is affected. He didn't feel they could remain at the present site until City Center is viable. He noted that the current problems began when the existing facility was built, because "corners were cut" then. He said that as a taxpayer he wanted his money to go where it is worthwhile. Ms. Dopp asked about the possibility of a joint facility for evidence storage. Chief Whipple said there had been discussion of a State facility for that use, but the State didn't want to have that discussion. He cited the need for a secure facility. He noted there is a move to store records electronically, but the Department hasn't has the funds to do much of that. Ms. Kennedy felt there should be provision for energy efficiency. She also cited the importance of going "neighborhood to neighborhood" to get information to the public. Mr. Hafter stressed that City Hall was already too small 20 years ago. He wanted to see a new facility done right. 3. Presentation of cost and funding models for new facility: Mr. Hafter explained that following the defeat of the Calkins site, the City Council took a leadership role and sought proposals from other landowners. The received offers on 15 permanent sites and 7 possible temporary sites. The Council then solicited bids from the preferred sites. Owners of 4 permanent and 2 temporary sites responded with cost proposals. Two of these were for open land, 2 for existing buildings and 2 for temporary space in existing buildings. Of these, the Council felt the two best sites were the current location and a building at 19 Gregory Drive (the former Resolution building) owned by Robert Miller. Mr. Hafter showed the location on a map. The proposal for the current site would be to build a 3-story building at a cost of $9,100,000. There would be an additional cost to relocate City Hall and the Police Department during construction ($2,500,000) for a total cost for use of the current site of $11,600,000. The proposal for 19 Gregory Drive is for a 45,049 sq. ft. building on 3.76 acres. There is abundant parking. The city would purchase 33,324 sq. ft. at this time. The remainder of the building is leased to a company. That lease would continue for 20 years, and at the end of that time the city would own the entire building at no additional cost. The purchase price would be $4,400,000. It is estimated that "fit up" costs would be $1,850,000 for the 33,324 sq. ft. plus special costs of $950,000. For a total of $7,200,000. Mr. Hafter noted that to purchase "raw land" adjacent to City Center would cost the city $2,500,000-3,000,000 for just the land. Mr. Hafter then reviewed the "pro" and "con" aspects of each location as follows: Mr. Hafter then reviewed a potential funding mechanism for the current City Hall site and the Gregory Drive location including annual use of $500,000 Rooms & Meals local option tax proceeds. Current Site     Gregory Drive Cost for average home in year 1: $58.08/year     $11.99 Average cost per year over 20 years:  29.77 2.45 Mr. Hubbard asked how that scenario would advance development of City Center. Ms. Emery said she never saw the Police in City Center as there wouldn't be enough space for the movement of Police vehicles. She felt a Library and public gardens and other city services would be more appropriate there. Mr. Hafter added that a new City Hall in City Center is still an option, and the existing building could be for other city uses. Mr. Boucher felt that moving the Police to Gregory Drive and renovating City Hall gives the city more options. Ms. Dooley said she thought there was a lot of "attachment" to the existing site and felt "queasy" about Gregory Drive. She asked if there was definitely a need to relocate. Mr. Knapp felt cost was a major issue as was efficiency. Mr. Hafter said the parking requirement at the existing site would also be an issue. Mr. Dubie said a lot of money was just spent to repair City Hall, and it would be a waste of money to tear it down now. Mr. Beaudin felt the city should take the Gregory Drive option to the voters as soon as possible. Mr. Magowan said the $4,500,000 difference between the two locations should end the discussion. He also said that Bob Miller is one of the most community minded landowners in the area. Mr. Stuono felt excited by the Gregory Drive proposal. Ms. Lebreque asked how this can be explained to the public. Mr. Murray noted that when he was on the School Board and they were proposing a large bond to renovate and put on additions to school buildings, there were presentations at PTO meetings, social meetings in neighborhoods, etc. He said the important thing is to anticipate everyone's questions. Mr. Smith noted that the Gregory Drive offer is cheaper than anything that has ever been on the table before. He felt it was a complete no-brainer. Ms. Griffin felt it was a winning idea. She added that she would pay double the $11.00 a year. She felt City Hall decisions can wait a while. Mr. Hubbard felt another option would be to lease space on a temporary basis. Mr. Boucher said that wouldn't be cheaper. Mr. Hafter said the fitting up would cost more than buying the property because it's such a special use. Mr. Barritt asked if Gregory Drive would be big enough for both Police and City hall. Mr. Hafter said it would not. Rep. Head felt there is compelling reason to look at Gregory Drive. She asked whether there is public transit to the area. Mr. Hafter said it is on the bus route. Officer Bliss said the Police Department is not limited by the location of its offices, and Police will be where they need to be when they need to be there. 4. Proposed Resolution Authorizing Expenditure of Public Funds for Professional Architectural Services and Outlining Schedule for Completion: Mr. Murray said there is an advantage to having combined uses (e.g., utility costs). He said he was concerned with a lack of a comprehensive approach to the long term needs for City Hall, Police and Fire services. He felt there has not been a comprehensive assessment of the 575 Dorset St. site. Mr. Donahue cited the work that has been done for 6 years and felt Mr. Murray should review all of those studies. Mr. Murray then read a resolution outlining the scope of services that would be involved in a professional assessment of the current building, including estimate cost of temporary modular space for the Police, evaluating and prioritizing future needs of Police, Fire and City Hall, deficiencies in the current facility, costs to expand the current facility, cost to convert facilities at Gregory Drive to a Police Station, costs savings in combining services, etc. Mr. Murray moved that the Council approve the professional assessment of the 575 Dorset St. site as outlined above. Ms. Dooley seconded. Ms. Dooley noted different levels of comfort on the City Council and the need to reach a common ground. She said she would rather table than defeat the resolution. Mr. Boucher said the Council has to decide whether they are making a location or a money decision. He said he knows what he is comfortable with. Ms. Emery said it comes down to what is realistic for something everyone knows is needed. The Police have been waiting for 7 years, and she felt there has been ample discussion of the Police needs and the need to act soon. She was adamantly opposed to a delay. She noted that she drove by the Gregory Dr. building and felt that "it looks like a police station." The price is right, and the city shouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth. Mr. Knapp said he was not in favor of the motion. He saw no reason to look at broad planning at this time and felt the Council can rely on work that has already been done. Ms. Dooley moved to table the motion. Mr. Knapp seconded. The motion to table passed 4-1 with Mr. Murray opposing. Mr. Knapp said that engineering studies need to be done on the Gregory Drive building to get things started. Ms. Emery moved to start engineering studies and review the conceptual plan for 19 Gregory Drive. Mr. Knapp seconded. Motion passed 4-1 with Mr. Murray opposing. Members agreed to a special Council meeting on 27 April, 7:30 p.m., at City Hall to further address the Police station issue. Mr. Hafter said he will work on a communications plan to get the message out to the public. As there was no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL 7 APRIL 2009 PAGE 6 The proposal for 19 Gregory Drive is for a 45,049 sq. ft. building on 3.76 acres. There is abundant parking. The city would purchase 33,324 sq. ft. at this time. The remainder of the building is leased to a company. That lease would continue for 20 years, and at the end of that time the city would own the entire building at no additional cost. The purchase price would be $4,400,000. It is estimated that “fit up” costs would be $1,850,000 for the 33,324 sq. ft. plus special costs of $950,000. For a total of $7,200,000. Mr. Hafter noted that to purchase “raw land” adjacent to City Center would cost the city $2,500,000-3,000,000 for just the land. Mr. Hafter then reviewed the “pro” and “con” aspects of each location as follows: Current Site: Pro Con 1. Central location 1. 3 stories impacts work flow 2. Have Police & Fire together 2. No solution for City Hall 3. Near schools 3. Fewer options for future conditions 4. Higher cost Gregory Drive Building: Pro Con 1. Flexible for future needs 1. On periphery of City (Police say this is not an issue) 2. State permits already exist 2. Does not support City Center 3. Building can be ready in 6 months 3. Takes portion of building off tax roles 4. Allows for renovation of City Hall 5. Can delay decision on new City Hall 6. No need for temporary location Mr. Hafter then reviewed a potential funding mechanism for the current City Hall site and the Gregory Drive location including annual use of $500,000 Rooms & Meals local option tax proceeds. Current Site Gregory Drive Cost for average home in year 1: $58.08/year $11.99 Average cost per year over 20 years: 29.77 2.45