Memorandum 15-007 Public Safety Building Review Committee Recommendations on How to Proceed

Memorandum 15-007

TO:                       Homer City Council

FROM:                 Public Safety Building Review Committee (PSBRC)

DATE:                  January 05, 2015

SUBJECT:         Public Safety Building

               Conceptual Design Status Report

                              Recommendations on How to Proceed

The Committee, working with City staff, has worked over the last eleven months to accomplish the completion of the Public Safety Building conceptual design scope of work contained within Ord. 14-020. The ordinance contained the following tasks:

“Review and rate GC/CM proposals and make a recommendation to the Council.”

P   This work is complete. A construction manager and project architect have been selected and the Council awarded contracts that achieve the first level of design.

“Review the proposed contract and provide input on the scope of work and deliverables.”

P   This work is complete and was elucidated within the contract documents.
“Review work products and participate in regular briefing with the contractor.”

P   This work is complete to the extent of reaching a conceptual design – a design and funding benchmark.

“Make recommendations / provide direction to staff /contractors as the project proceeds.” 

P   This work is complete to this juncture of additional policy related direction. The committee selected a site for the new facilities and the Council has ratified the location. The site selection has allowed advancement of the preliminary site and building design.

“Make recommendations to Council as to how to proceed as benchmarks are achieved.”

 P   We have reached a financial and design benchmark. Our recommendations are stated below.

The committee, at the onset, agreed to work by consensus. In the event of failing unanimity, the options discussed are presented.

The committee initiated interactions with the citizenry, through the opportunities of its meetings, which often held three agenda spots for public comment and questions, and presentations to civic organizations. We hope that these will continue as the next phase develops.

We have reached a point that requires policy direction from the City Council which may include further appropriation of funds to advance the project beyond the initial phase. The Council also now needs to decide whether to dissolve or extend the life of the Committee (as directed in the enabling ordinance).

               Recommendations:

The City Council approve the conceptual design.

Needs Analysis – A space needs study, commissioned by the architect with a firm specializing in accurate program identification and space allocations for municipal public safety buildings, documented a 2016 building size of ~22,000 square feet for the Police Department and  ~21,200 square feet for the Police Department. Space allocations were based on mid-point (not the largest acceptable or the smallest acceptable) square footages for each program element.
Site Planning - A site plan was developed that provides an efficient layout of a combined facility (as a single project); but also provides for the opportunity to construct in two phases. The site is not large enough to construct a building of a single story, so much of the building is on two floors.
Site Mitigations – The HERC site contains a variety of existing encumbrances:

A waterway transects the property;
The Public Works Department occupies one of the existing buildings;
The gymnasium and an adjacent classroom are used for community recreation and training;
The skateboard park is located there; and
An outdoor basketball court is partially located there.

Public Comment – Almost all public comment revolved around the loss of the recreational spaces. Some also wondered about the proximity to the KPSD Homer Middle School and the access to the school across the HERC property. When questions were posed by the public, the Committee or City staff or the GC/CM Design Team provided responsive information.
Alternatives:

The “Build Everything as Soon as Possible” approach.

Pro: Notion that soonest money is the cheapest money, and soonest construction is the least expensive price per square foot.
Con: Shortage of funds for the size of the designed project may delay construction for many years, and returns a focus on the mitigations listed above.

The “Two Phases” approach.

Pro: Phasing allows a continued use of some of the existing facilities and may be the only sized plan that can be financed through municipal bonding or financing in this calendar year.
Con: Future construction costs will undoubtedly be higher than today’s. The Fire/EMS personnel worry that Phase II may fall off the list of City priorities.

The “Private/Public” Partnership approach.

Pro: Teaming with a private partner could allow the entire project to proceed. A private entity can put certain tax advantages to good use, where the City cannot.
Con: The Council has previously decided that owning and maintaining municipal buildings is the best public policy.

Policy Considerations:

Does the City go to complete design and pursue funding for the complete project; or
Does the City go to complete design and pursue funding for the first phase of the project; or
Does the City go to Phase One design and pursue funding for the first phase of the project; or
Does the City put the project on hold until a more solid funding plan has been established?

The City Council approve a schedule for the project.  The GC/CM team developed a schedule with the following milestones:

    Start                                   End

35% Preliminary Design                          Feb 2015                         Dec 2015

Bond proposition on the ballot           Jun 2015                           Oct 2015

65% GMP Design                                        Nov 2015                         Sept 2016

100% Final Design                                     Sept 2016                          Apr 2017

Construction                                                 May 2017                         Sept 2018

The City Council approve a budget to take the project to 35% design.  Taking the next step will fill in some of the blank areas and establish some of the craft budgets (civil, electrical, mechanical and specialties) to further public information and review. A rough order of magnitude cost estimate was completed by the GC/CM team for the project; assuming 2017-18 construction. The total cost of a single combined project is $29.9 M.  Postponing construction or phasing may increase the overall cost of the project.

 Project Funding Needs –  How Much and When?

The Design Team attempted to assess building square footage for both Police and Fire to determine if initial costs could reasonably be reduced. The design team concluded that rather than eliminating square footage to reduce costs, the City should seek cost sharing with other local, state, and federal agencies for jail, range, and emergency management facilities.

The Committee concluded that from a practical perspective there is no significant square footage with a lower priority that should be postponed (with the possible exception of the shooting range). The Committee also determined that it was premature to make reductions in scope prior to establishing firmer designs and cost estimates. Cutting and trade-offs can come later in the process.

If the State would participate in Jail construction (say pay 1/3 the cost); it could reduce the City’s cost by $1,100,000. Participation in Range construction (say pay half the cost) might reduce the City’s cost by $900,000). The potential for Federal/State/Borough participation in the cost of this project should also be investigated.

Private organizations (such as the NRA) might also contribute to the costs of the project.

The City Council should either disband or reauthorize the Committee.  Per the resolution that created the PSBRC, the committee “shall be disbanded when the initial scope of work is complete and the Council appropriation is expended. The Council may extend the life of the Committee and expand its scope of work if the project proceeds beyond this initial phase and additional project revenues are secured.”

The City Council should consider some policy matters that are outside of the purview of the PSBRC. 

What is the future of the fire department? Many have suggested that the EMS/Fire response duties found on the southern peninsula, be combined or reorganized. This could affect the programing and sizing of the new City facilities.
What will the operational costs of the new facilities be and how will the City pay for those costs? The existing maintenance, janitorial, heating and lighting expenses will be magnified by the increased size of the new facilities. As part of a plan presented to the public, operational costs should be addressed.