City Council Work Session: August 31, 2009

ITEM: 4

ITEM: Safety Center Update

SUMMARY:

At the June 22, 2009 Council Worksession the Safety Center Taskforce brought forth their findings
and recommendations for Council review. Those recommendations were based on the work the
Taskforce completed over a 90-day process, meeting on a bi-weekly basis. A complete listing of
meetings, agendas, minutes, and other information provided to the taskforce can be found on the
City's Website at:

http://www.ci.northfield.mn.us/projects/pd/2009/02/09/safety_center_task_force

As a result of the review of the Safety Center Taskforce Report, a work plan was developed to
gather information the Council had requested in several key areas of interest. The worksession
discussion tonight will focus on providing the additional information collected to date and an update
on the other areas included in the work plan.

Listed below are the Council requests and corresponding action steps taken at this time:

#1 Council Request: Develop additional information on the service levels and

standards for Police and Fire Departments.

Action: Attachment #1, Police Department Service Levels, was developed by

Police Chief Taylor in response to the Council’s request. Similar
information is being developed by the Fire Department.

#2 Council Request: Complete a Flood Plain Analysis of the current Safety Center
Location.

Action: Mr. Art Kalmes, P.E. CFM from URS Corporation was contracted to
complete the Preliminary Flood Plain Analysis of the current safety center
location. Mr. Kalmes will present his finding to the Council Monday
evening. Attachment #2 is a copy of his report. Additionally, Mr. John
McNamara from Wold Architecture developed two alternative site plans
using the information from the Flood Plan Analysis; a preliminary
construction budget was developed for each alternative (Attachment #3).

#3 Council Request: Begin development of a public education process based on the

Safety Center Taskforce Final Report and Initial Feasibility and
Space Needs Study Report.

Action: Mr. Randolph Jennings, Occasional Press, was asked to develop a proposal
for a public education campaign on the Northfield Safety Center issues. Mr.
 Jennings will present some initial information to the Council at the
worksession.

#4 Council Request: Begin negotiations with property owners of the two recommended
sites.

Action: The two sites identified as recommended sites were the 6.7 acre land parcel
owned by Central Valley Coop Site located at 1480 Highway #3 and the 5.0
acre land parcel at the south east corner of Riverview Drive and Cannon
Road owned by the Cowles Family Trust. City staff met with
representatives of each property to begin discussions and obtain permission
to complete a property appraisal of each location. BRKW Appraisals have
been contracted to complete land appraisal of each site. These are expected
to be completed in early September 2009.

#5 Council Request: Continue to investigate potential grant funding sources and

partnership cost sharing for the construction of a new safety
center.

Action: Staff continues to monitor the Department of Agriculture Website,

Department of Commerce (State and Federal) American Recovery Act
Website, Homeland Security and FEMA Websites. Additionally staff has
been in contact with Senator Klobuchar office, US Representative Kline,
State Senator Dahle and Representative Bly. Staff will continue to monitor
for opportunities.

POTENTIAL OPTIONS:

Given the additional information received with the completion of the Flood Plain Analysis Report,
staff developed a Potential Options - Benefit and Challenges Table (Attachment #4) for the
Council's review.

Assumptions regarding Potential Options Table development:

1. Costs are estimated in today's construction costs. Given the current construction climate, the
lowest cost for construction would be if construction started tomorrow. The longer the
planning and decision timeline is expanded the higher the costs. Construction projects bid
today are routinely coming in at 10% below estimated construction costs. Construction costs
are expected to increase at a greater rate in the fall of 2010.

2. Bonds issued for the project would be sold in late 2010 or early 2011. The project related
increase in property taxes would be in 2012.

3. Construction costs estimates used for refurbishing and remodeling the existing site assumed
complete removal and replacement of existing heating and air conditioning (HVAC), roof,
electrical, interior water and sewer services, and window replacement, addition of structural
 footings and structural beams for the 2nd floor in the existing fire bay, fully ADA compliant
restrooms and access (elevator addition will be necessary).

4. The Safety Center Taskforce generally agreed that a fire sub-station would be necessary to
build at some future point in time depending on the Northfield area rate of growth and type
of growth. Although not specific in location, the general consensus was the substation would
be located in the northwest quadrant of the city. Currently staff is doing the preliminary
study on locating a future water tower facility in this quadrant of the city. The purchase of
property could be expanded in size to accommodate both a future water tower and fire
station on one site.

5. The programmed space needs for fire and police were confirmed by the Safety Center
Taskforce: 22,950 sf for police operations including garage space and 24,550 sf for fire
operations including 6 apparatus bays. See Attachment #5: Safety Center Taskforce Final
Report.

NEXT STEPS:

Council review of information and provide further direction to staff.

PERTINENT BACKGROUND: Safety Center Taskforce

The City Council approved the formation of a Safety Center Taskforce January 26, 2009 and
completed appointments to the taskforce on February 2, 2009. The Taskforce mission statement:

The Taskforce Committee will meet regularly to research, analyze data, and define facility space
needs, building locations, and financing and ultimately make a report clearly defining public safety
needs to the City Council.

Work Plan:

The outline of tasks to be undertaken by the Taskforce committee is listed below:

1. Provide a recommendation on building size by confirming the growth assumptions,

reviewing the immediate space needs and estimating future departments’ growth, assessing
outside agencies needs, and confirming needs versus wants.

2. Provide a recommendation on a selected site by confirming the operational model,

considering “response time”, and assessing the pro’s and con’s for each identified site.

3. Provide a recommendation on financing by reviewing the referendum model, investigating

potential grant opportunities, and evaluate possible partnering with outside agencies.

4. These recommendations will be provided to the City Council within a 60 to 90 day time
frame with updates provided on the work completed provided to the council at 30 day
intervals.
The Task Force was comprised of 11 community members that include:

1. Council Member Kris Vohs 2. Council Member Jon Denison

3. Police Chief Mark Taylor 4. Fire Chief Gerry Franek

5. Planning Commissioner Mr. Greg Colby 6. Mr. Fred Rogers

7. Mr. Jerry Anderson, Rural Fire Fighters 8. Mr. Ray Cox

9. Mr. David Hvistendahl 10. Ms. Janelle Teppen

11. Mr. Andy Yurek, Hospital/Ambulance

At the final Taskforce meeting on June 11, 2009, all members agreed on moving forward with the
following recommendations, which were brought forward to the Council on June 22, 2009:

1. Recommendation on Building Size:

Having reviewed the data presented to the Taskforce, the Taskforce recommends to
the City Council to construct a combined Public Safety Center of 47,500 square feet
in size.

2. Recommendation on Building Location:

Utilizing the Site Selection Criteria and after a thorough review of 13 sites throughout
the City, the Taskforce is recommending two sites for Council consideration:

a. Valley Co-Op located on Highway 3

b. Cowles Property located on Riverview Drive.

Either site will meet the needs of a combined Public Safety Center. The Taskforce strongly
encourages the City Council to do a detailed review of all flood protection criteria to determine
what can be done at the current Safety Center Site and explore ideas relating to reuse of this site
as “gateway” to the City.

3. Recommendation on Financing:

Having reviewed the data presented by City Finance staff and the City’s bond counsel,
the Taskforce recommends the City Council consider the following options for financing:

a. Voter approval through a referendum of the sale of $10.4 million plus land acquisition costs
in General Obligation Bonds.

b. City Council approval of the sale of $10.4 million plus land acquisition costs in Capital
Improvement Bonds, subject to a reverse referendum.

The Safety Center Taskforce Final Report is included as Attachment #5.

ATTACHMENT:

1. Police Department Service Levels

2. Preliminary Flood Plain Analysis
3. Existing Site Alternative Plans Option #1 & #2
4. Potential Options - Benefit and Challenges Table
5. Safety Center Taskforce Final Report

SUBMITTED BY: J. Walinski, City Administrator

 Northfield Police Department
Service Statistics August 2009

Population: 19,800

Sworn FTEs per 1,000 population: 1.12

(22 sworn officers divided by 19.5)

Sworn and Civilian FTEs per 1,000 population: 1.38

(27 FTEs divided by 19.5)

The most universally accepted study relevant to police staffing levels and the general
population is the FBI Uniform Crime Report, which is 2.7 officers per 1000 citizens for
Midwest communities.

CITY Population FT FT Personnel Resident/FT Personnel

Staff Officers Cost Employee Cost/Resident
2009
Faribault 22,798 39 30 $2,898,690
Farmington 18,589 26 23 $2,299.997
Hastings 22,439 32 27 $2,692,138
Hutchinson 14,021 34 23 $
Northfield 19,859 27 22 $2,535,571
Red Wing 16,338 33 27 $2,538,883

Average Response Time in Minutes:

(Jan. 1, 2009 to Aug. 12, 2009)

Priority 1 Calls: 2.50

Priority 2 Calls: 7.71
Priority 3 Calls: 8.86
All calls average: 5.38
 o Priority 1 Calls include: assault, accident, fight, death, criminal sexual conduct,
medicals, robbery, accidents, hold-up alarms, domestic, fire call and others.

o Priority 2 Calls include: DWI, burglary, welfare check, 911 hang-up, disorderly, loud
noise/party, forgery, restraining order violation, missing person, shoplifting, trespass
and others.

o Priority 3 Calls include: animal calls, check premise/residence, liquor & tobacco
compliance, curfew, lost/found property, harassing communication, parking
complaint, vandalism, theft from auto, identity theft and others.

Calls for Service:

May 13, 2008 – December 31, 2008: 8,018

January 1, 2009 – August 14, 2009: 8,044

2008 Arrests:

Total: 565
Arrests per 1,000 population: 28.97
DUI Arrests per 1,000 population: 3.79
Part 1 Property Crimes per 1,000 population: 19.43
Part 1 Violent Crimes per 1,000 population: 0.66

o Part 1 Property Crimes include: burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft.

o Part 1 Violent Crimes include: murder, rape, robbery and aggravated assault.

Currently no industry wide accepted standards that use arrest rates or response time. Local
service standards to be developed in 2010.

Equipment:

City: Northfield Faribault Farmington Red Wing Hastings Hutchinson

Squads: 9 15 9 11 9 7
 932.8 918.0 907.2

911.3
909.0
906.7
923.2 918.4 906.6

934.7 921.3
903.8

904.6

921.4 911.0

912.5 907.5

906.6 91

912.1

EXIST ING BUILDING

913.5
909.4
911.9
909.8
Fifth Street 909.7

911.0
907.5

FLOODWAY LIMITS 909.6

915.4 909.4
OA

PROPOSED BUILDING PROPOSED BUILDING

911.1

OPTION 1 906.4
OPTION 2
907.6

908.8

908.5
908.9

910.8
SIXTH STR

905.8

915.9 911.4
901.8

912.7

908.7

909.5

907.5 913.1 918.7

903.1

918.1
908.5
908.5 905.6

Legend 915.1
905.6
Cro ss Se ctio n / BFE
FL OODWAY
913.4
908.5 925.4
906.9
1 PC T AN NU AL C H ANC E FLOOD HA ZA RD
0.2 PC T AN N UA L CH AN CE FL OOD H AZAR D
929.9

925.0

200 100
. 0 200 Feet
LOCATION MAP
CITY OF NORTHFIELD
EMERGENCY SERVICES BUILDING
 906. 6

911. 9
Fifth Street
909. 8

ENTRANCE RAISED

EXIST ING BUILDING

915. 4 FLOODWALL
PROPOSED BUILDING OA

FLOODWAY LIMITS
906. 4

907. 6

INTERNAL DRAINAGE OUTLET

908. 8

908. 5

EART HEN EMBANKMENT

Legend
Cro ss Se ctio n / BFE
FL OODWAY
908. 7
1 PC T AN NU AL C H ANC E FLOOD HA ZA RD
0.2 PC T AN N UA L CH AN CE FL OOD H AZAR D

100 50
. 0 100 Feet
Option A-1
Levee / Floodwall System
 906. 6

911. 9
Fifth Street
909. 8

ENTRANCE RAISED

EXIST ING BUILDING

915. 4
PROPOSED BUILDING OA
FLOODWALL

FLOODWAY LIMITS

906. 4

907. 6 INTERNAL DRAINAGE OUTLET

908. 8

908. 5

EART HEN EMBANKMENT

Legend
Cro ss Se ctio n / BFE
FL OODWAY
908. 7
1 PC T AN NU AL C H ANC E FLOOD HA ZA RD
0.2 PC T AN N UA L CH AN CE FL OOD H AZAR D

100 50
. 0 100 Feet
Option A-2
Levee / Floodwall System
 906. 6

911. 9
Fifth Street
909. 8

DRY FLOODPROOF
EXIST ING BUILDING
TO ELEV 909.3 RAISE PARKING LOT
TO ELEV 908.3
915. 4
OA
PROPOSED BUILDING
FOOR ELEVATION 909.3

RAISE TRANSFORMER
TO ELEV 909.3
906. 4

907. 6

908. 8

908. 5

INSTALL RETAINING
WALL AS NEEDED

FLOODWAY LIMITS

Legend
Cro ss Se ctio n / BFE
FL OODWAY
908. 7
1 PC T AN NU AL C H ANC E FLOOD HA ZA RD
0.2 PC T AN N UA L CH AN CE FL OOD H AZAR D

100 50
. 0 100 Feet
Option B-1
Raise Parking Lot
and
Floodproof Existing Building
 906. 6

911. 9
Fifth Street
909. 8

DRY FLOODPROOF
EXIST ING BUILDING RAISE PARKING LOT
TO ELEV 909.3 TO ELEV 908.3
915. 4
OA
RAISE TRANSFORMER
PROPOSED BUILDING
TO ELEV 909.3
FOOR ELEVATION 909.3

906. 4
INSTALL RETAINING
907. 6
WALL AS NEEDED
908. 8

908. 5

FLOODWAY LIMITS

Legend
Cro ss Se ctio n / BFE
FL OODWAY
908. 7
1 PC T AN NU AL C H ANC E FLOOD HA ZA RD
0.2 PC T AN N UA L CH AN CE FL OOD H AZAR D

100 50
. 0 100 Feet
Option B-2
Raise Parking Lot
and
Floodproof Existing Building
 906. 6

911. 9
Fifth Street
909. 8

ABANDON LOWER LEVEL OF

EXIST ING BUILDING BY F ILLING
WITH SAND TO ELEV 909.3
RAISE PARKING LOT
TO ELEV 908.3
915. 4
OA
PROPOSED BUILDING
FLOOR ELEVATION 909.3

RAISE TRANSFORMER
TO ELEV 909.3
906. 4

907. 6

908. 8

908. 5

INSTALL RETAINING
WALL AS NEEDED

FLOODWAY LIMITS

Legend
Cro ss Se ctio n / BFE
FL OODWAY
908. 7
1 PC T AN NU AL C H ANC E FLOOD HA ZA RD
0.2 PC T AN N UA L CH AN CE FL OOD H AZAR D

.
Option C-1
Raise Parking Lot
and
100 50 0 100 Feet Abandon Lower Level
of Existing Building
 906. 6

911. 9
Fifth Street
909. 8

ABANDON LOWER LEVEL OF

EXIST ING BUILDING BY F ILLING
WITH SAND TO ELEV 909.3
RAISE PARKING LOT
TO ELEV 908.3
915. 4
OA
RAISE TRANSFORMER
PROPOSED BUILDING
TO ELEV 909.3
FLOOR ELEVATION 909.3

906. 4
INSTALL RETAINING
907. 6
WALL AS NEEDED
908. 8

908. 5

FLOODWAY LIMITS

Legend
Cro ss Se ctio n / BFE
FL OODWAY
908. 7
1 PC T AN NU AL C H ANC E FLOOD HA ZA RD
0.2 PC T AN N UA L CH AN CE FL OOD H AZAR D

.
Option C-2
Raise Parking Lot
and
100 50 0 100 Feet Abandon Lower Level
of Existing Building
 906. 6

911. 9
Fifth Street
909. 8

WET FLOO DPROOF LOWER

LEVEL OF EXISTING BUILDING

915. 4
OA
RELOCATE TRANSFORMER
PROPOSED BUILDING
RAISE TO ELEV 909.3
FLOOR ELEVATION 909.3

906. 4

907. 6

908. 8

908. 5

EXTEND PARKING LOT

FLOODWAY LIMITS

Legend
Cro ss Se ctio n / BFE
FL OODWAY
908. 7
1 PC T AN NU AL C H ANC E FLOOD HA ZA RD
0.2 PC T AN N UA L CH AN CE FL OOD H AZAR D

100 50
. 0 100 Feet
Option D-1
Wet Floodproofing
 906. 6

911. 9
Fifth Street
909. 8

WET FLOO DPROOF LOWER

LEVEL OF EXISTING BUILDING

915. 4
OA
PROPOSED BUILDING RELOCATE TRANSFORMER
FLOOR ELEVATION 909.3 RAISE TO ELEV 909.3

906. 4

907. 6

908. 8

908. 5

FLOODWAY LIMITS

Legend
Cro ss Se ctio n / BFE
FL OODWAY
908. 7
1 PC T AN NU AL C H ANC E FLOOD HA ZA RD
0.2 PC T AN N UA L CH AN CE FL OOD H AZAR D

100 50
. 0 100 Feet
Option D-2
Wet Floodproofing
New Public Safety Center Wold Architects and Engineers
Existing Safety Center Study - Police Only August 25, 2009
PROJECT BUDGET
Planning Planning
FUNDING SOURCE Option 1 Option 2
Proposed Project Budget $ 4,215,000 $ 4,595,000
Total Funding $ 4,215,000 $ 4,595,000
FUNDING ALLOCATION
Building Construction
General Conditions $ 250,000 $ 275,000
Site/ Demolition $ 140,000 $ 200,000
Concrete $ 54,000 $ 167,500
Masonry $ 65,000 $ 182,000
Metals $ 37,000 $ 58,500
Wood $ 34,000 $ 34,000
Moisture Protection $ 89,000 $ 122,000
Doors/ Windows $ 221,000 $ 221,000
Gypsum Board/ Finishes $ 255,000 $ 255,000
Specialties $ 55,000 $ 55,000
Conveying Systems $ 75,000 $ 75,000
Mechanical $ 750,000 $ 750,000
Electrical $ 450,000 $ 450,000
Subtotal $ 2,475,000 $ 2,845,000
Estimating Contingency $ 370,000 $ 425,000
Overhead, Profit and Insurance $ 175,000 $ 200,000
Subtotal Construction Cost $ 3,020,000 $ 3,470,000
Construction Contingency $ 250,000 $ 275,000
Total Construction Cost $ 3,270,000 $ 3,745,000
Site Development
Levee/ Flood Proof Existing Building $ 300,000 $ 150,000

Fees and Testing (Approximately 10%)

Architectural & Engineering Fees $ 235,000 $ 265,000
Architectural Reimbursables $ 15,000 $ 15,000
Bond Issuance Fees and Underwriters Discount $ 15,000 $ 15,000
Geotechnical/ Surveying/ Environmental $ 12,000 $ 12,000
Health Dept. Plumbing Review Fees $ 5,000 $ 5,000
Bid Advertisement/ Printing $ 10,000 $ 10,000
Construction Testing/ Inspections $ 10,000 $ 10,000
Commissioning $ 8,000 $ 8,000
Contingencies $ 10,000 $ 35,000
Subtotal Fees and Testing $ 320,000 $ 375,000
Furniture and Equipment (Approximately 8%-10%)
Furniture Allowance $ 125,000 $ 125,000
Equipment Allowance $ 100,000 $ 100,000
Technology Allowance $ 75,000 $ 75,000
Consultant Fees $ 15,000 $ 15,000
Contingency $ 10,000 $ 10,000
Subtotal Furniture and Equipment $ 325,000 $ 325,000
Total Project Cost $ 4,215,000 $ 4,595,000
Commission No. 062129
 Attachment #4: Potential Options - Benefit and Challenges Table

POTENTIAL OPTIONS TABLE

AUGUST 31, 2009
#1. Safety Center Task Force Recommendation: Construction of a new building to house both Police and Fire Departments on one
of two preferred sites. Cost Estimate: $10,400,000 plus land purchase. 22,950 sf. for police operations, 24,550 sf. for fire operations.
Benefits: Challenges:
• New construction offers opportunity for most efficient use • Preferred sites are not centrally located, south on Highway
of designed space for police and fire operations and #3. Optical Sensors for control of Highway #3 traffic
potential use of LEED Design standards. lights included in project costs.
• Either preferred site allows for future expansion if police • Purchase of land is an addition to project. Appraisals yet
or fire operations change or expand over time (A second to be completed.
fire station construction maybe necessary dependant on • Reuse of existing site and building remains a question.
growth type and location). • Potentially most costly option. Land costs and unknown
• The construction of a single facility would be more costs of other options cannot be determined at this time.
efficient through an “economy of scale”. For example the
site would require one mobilization for the contractor and
all earthwork could be completed in a single phase as well
as the utility connections.
• The construction of a single facility would also offer
opportunities for efficiencies in administrative operations
of fire and police and maintenance of facilities (even
though the buildings may be near each other they would
still each require approximately the same maintenance on
certain pieces of equipment (i.e. HVAC units). If not co-
located then the maintenance would require facilities
personnel to transit between facilities and reduce their
efficiencies. Efficiencies of scale could also be captured
in major maintenance recapitalization such as reroofing.
• No temporary or secondary moving costs necessary.

Page 1
 Attachment #4: Potential Options - Benefit and Challenges Table

#2. Reuse of Existing Building: Extensive rehab of the existing building to house a stand-alone Police facility. Two options (#2
Option 1, #2 Option 2) considered using flood mitigation finding. Use of existing building for stand alone Fire Department Facility
limited. Taskforce identified drive through bays and the need for additional bays as the two greatest needs for the current fire
operations. Given the limitations on obtaining a secondary access to the site and the high costs for adding a additional bay and
providing drive through bays, this option was removed from consideration at this time.

#2. Option 1: Construction of levee and floodwall allowing for complete use of existing building. 20,850 sf. operating area plus 14
indoor parking stalls. Cost Estimate: $4,215,000 for renovation for police facility. 24,550 sf. new fire call Construction Costs
$4,992,000 plus land purchase.

Benefits:
• Question on reuse of site not an ongoing issue.
• Potentially lower cost, assuming limited rehab surprises
found and smaller site purchased for new fire hall
construction. Estimated construction cost savings:
$1,193,000
• Multiple sites available for fire hall construction allowing
a more central location to be selected.
• New fire hall construction offers opportunity for most
efficient use of designed space for fire operations and
potential use of LEED Design standards and “green”
construction.
• Current site offers a visible and centrally located police
station.
• Police operating space 2100 sf. more than optimum size
recommended by Taskforce.
• 6 additional indoor parking stalls.
Challenges:
• Limited future expansion of police facility at this site.
• Achievement of LEED Design Standards limited at
existing site and green construction.
• Existing structure limits operational design efficiency.
Future police operational changes limited.
• Higher operation and maintenance lifetime costs.
• Temporary housing for police and/or fire operations
during construction will be necessary, additional costs.
• Extensive timeline of permit requirements for flood
mitigation approval could increase overall construction
costs. Estimated 8-10% increase for every 12 month delay
in construction.

Page 2
 Attachment #4: Potential Options - Benefit and Challenges Table

#2. Reuse of Existing Building (cont.):

#2. Option 2: Elevation of parking lot, restricted use of lower level of existing building, a 4,700 sf. addition included in building
renovation plans. 22,550 sf. plus unoccupied temporary use space in existing lower level, 14 indoor parking stalls. Cost Estimate:
$4,595,000 for police facility. 24,550 sf. new fire hall construction costs $4,992,000 plus land purchase.

Benefits:
• Question on reuse of site not an ongoing issue.
• Option allows some room for future operational expansion
within existing facility.
• Lower "limited use area" could be used for training room,
shooting range, or other temporary uses.
• Potentially lower cost, assuming limited rehab surprises
found and smaller site purchased for new fire hall
construction. Estimated construction cost savings:
$813,000
• Multiple sites available for fire hall construction allowing
a more central location to be selected.
• New fire hall construction offers opportunity for most
efficient use of designed space for fire operations and
potential use of LEED Design standards and “green’
construction.
• Current site offers a visible and centrally located police
station.
• 6 additional indoor parking stalls.
Challenges:
• Limited future expansion of police facility at this site.
• Achievement of LEED Design Standards and use of
“green’ construction limited at existing site.
• Existing structure limits operational design efficiency.
Future police operational changes limited.
• Higher operation and maintenance lifetime costs.
• Temporary housing for police and/or fire operations
during construction will be necessary, additional costs.
• Higher construction costs than #2 option 1.
• Although less extensive permit process, timeline of permit
requirements for flood mitigation approval could increase
overall construction costs. Estimated 8-10% increase for
every 12 month delay in construction.

Page 3
 Attachment #4: Potential Options - Benefit and Challenges Table

#3. Reuse of Existing Site: Demolition of existing building and construction of new fire hall facility on the existing site. Construction
of new building on site above the 100 year flood line could allow for construction a building that could accommodate drive through
fire bays and the needed number of bays. The new fire hall construction was preferred over a new police facility construction at this
site because of continued limitations for future expansion and the central location of site is more beneficial to fire operations than
police operations. Cost estimate: $4,992,000 fire hall construction, $5,408,000 police facility plus land purchase. $30,000 - $50,000
demolition costs, range dependant on lead and asbestos abatement costs.
Benefits: Challenges:
• Question on reuse of site not an ongoing issue. • Higher operation and maintenance lifetime costs.
• Fire hall use of site could be considered "lifetime" or • Temporary housing for police and/or fire operations
permanent use of site. during construction may be necessary, additional costs.
• New design of fire hall could address "Gateway" design • Higher construction costs than either option in #2 above.
concern identified by taskforce (See Taskforce Rec. #2) • Demolition of existing facility added cost to project,
• Future expansion of police facility could be considered in $30,000 to $50,000.
site selection.
• 100 year flood plain limitations addressed in site
preparation.
• Potentially lower cost depending on site selected for
police facility.
• Multiple sites available for police facility allowing a more
central location to be selected.
• New construction offers opportunity for most efficient use
of designed space for police and fire operations and
potential use of LEED Design standards and “green”
construction.
• Less extensive timeline of permit requirements for flood
mitigation approval than either option in #2 listed above.

Page 4