Minutes

Public Safety Bond Committee

April 15, 2010

Grove, 1155 East Main 8:00 a.m.

Attendence:  Mackin, Slattery, Walters, Modesitt, Daugherty, Kramer, Custodio, Dotterrer, Boldt, Kenefick, Stebbins, Paul, Seltzer (staff), Holderness (staff)

Absent:  Fox, Karns

Guest: David Chapman, City Councilor

Call to order:

Chair Mackin called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. and minutes from April 1 were approved.

Overview of Proposed Changes to the Grove to accommodate Police Station

Ken Ogden was not able to attend the meeting.  Seltzer presented his analysis of the possibility of locating the police station to the Grove.

The Grove would provide approximately 11,000 square feet of space versus 9,000 square feet if the expansion of the existing station occurs.

Ogden estimates modifications to the Grove would be approximately $1 million at a cost of approximately $95 per square foot versus $1.1 million for the proposed expansion to the existing station at approximately $125 per square foot.

Ogden notes that federal and state regulations require specific seismic requirements of buildings housing “essential services”.  These regulations were not in effect at the time of the Facilities Master Plan process and consequently expanding the existing station would likely cost more than the estimated $1.1 million.  The estimated cost for the Grove includes the new seismic regulations.

Ogden also notes that the Grove would provide sufficient space to locate the EOC (emergency operations center).  Currently, Council Chambers is used as the EOC and the space is insufficient.

Using the Grove as the police station would free up the existing station for City office use.  Lack of office space for some departments is noted as a need in the Facilities Master Plan.

Review of committee member input to date and discussion on priorities, criteria, election dates and amount.

The committee discussed how best to proceed and agreed to address each item one by one using the six points defined as the purpose of the Committee.

1)      Is there a valid need for the identified public safety improvements?

a)      Fire Station #2

Motion: The committee agrees there is a valid need for Fire Station #2.  (Kramer/Kenefick) Motion passes unanimously.

b)      Expansion/Improvement of Police Station

Motion: The committee agrees there is a valid need for expansion and improvement to the Police Station.  (Kramer/Dotterrer) Motion passes unanimously.

c)      Aerial Ladder Truck

Motion: The committee recognizes there is a valid need for an aerial ladder truck. (Kramer/Custodio) Motion passes unanimously.

d)      Fire Training Tower

Motion: The committee agrees there is a valid need for a training tower. (Kramer/Slattery) Motion passes unanimously.

2)      Should the City seek voter approval of a General Election Bond for fund the various improvements?

a) Fire Station

Motion: The committee recommends the City seek a GO Bond for Fire Station #2. (Dotterrer/Modisitt)  Motion passes unanimously.

b) Expansion/Improvements to Police Station

Motion: The committee recommends the City seek a GO Bond for the Police Station. (Dotterrer/Boldt) Motion passes 12 to 1

c) Aerial Ladder Truck

Motion: The committee does NOT recommend the City seek a GO Bond for the aerial ladder truck. (Dotterrer/Kenefick) Motion passes 12 to 1

Custodio voted against the motion and the committee encouraged him to write and submit a minority report.

d) Fire Training Tower

Motion: The committee does NOT recommend the City seek a GO Bond for the training tower. (Dotterrer/Slattery) Motion passes unanimously.

3)         Which public safety improvement should be on the levy?

            a) Fire Station #2

Motion: The committee recommends both Fire Station #2 and Police Station be put on the ballot as a single measure for a total amount. (Modesitt/Slattery)

Discussion:

Members commented that combining both facilities in one measure risks losing both facilities.  Comments included arguments that by separating the two facilities into two measures, the least expensive one is most likely to pass (police station) and the more expensive one (fire station) will not pass.  Comments were made that it is difficult to go back to voters at a later date asking for funds for another facility.  The committee unanimously agreed the Fire Station #2 is the most critical and should go on the ballot on its own.  In addition, some committee members were reluctant to recommend moving the Police Station to the Grove without knowing the political climate or sensitive sentiments were still associated with the use of the Grove and could possible risk losing the vote for Fire Station #2.

Yes = 6, No = 7 Motion fails.

Motion: The committee recommends Fire Station #2 and Police Station be placed on separate ballots. (Dotterrer/Slattery)

Motion passes 12 to 1.  Kenefick explained his no vote is not against the need for the Police Station but rather he did not want the police station to have an open ended time frame for putting the project on a ballot.

4)         What amount should be on the levy?

Motion: The committee recommends Fire Station #2 be placed on the ballot for no more than $3 million to cover costs for a quality station as presented by the architectural firm of Peck, Smily Ettlin (Kramer/Kenefick)  Motion passes unanimously.

5)         Which election date should the Fire Station #2 measure be placed on the ballot?

Motion: The committee recommends the City seek a voter approved GO Bond for Fire Station #2 at the May 2011 general election.

Discussion: 

Arguments were made in favor of placing the measure on the November 2010 ballot.  Some members commented that the City would be competing with the school district who is seeking renewal of the YAL (youth activities levy) and others did not see it as competition since voters will be asked to continue to fund the YAL as they are currently doing.  A comment was made that the YAL may have a hard time passing in November given the economic climate.  Motion passes unanimously.

Motion: The committee recommends to the City Council that the Police Station is a top priority, the station should be relocated to the Grove and the City should seek a GO Bond at an election date subsequent to May 2011.  Motion passes 12 to 1.

Discussion:  Generally, the committee was supportive of seeking voter approval of the Police Station Improvement at a future date and again there was mention of being hesitant to recommend moving PD to the Grove knowing there may be sensitive issues regarding the use of the Grove. 

6) Provide to the Council the committee rational on making its final recommendations.

Committee members agreed to send their written comments/rational to staff.  Staff will prepare a draft final recommendation and rational for committee review at the April 29 meeting.

Kenefick praised the work of the committee.  Stebbins praised the work of the chair and of staff.

Next meeting date:

April 29, at 51 Winburn Way.