[0:00] All right. We will go ahead and call community the hold order and first move to approve the minutes of the October 13th meeting without some

[0:12] Saturday of a reading. Okay. Motions been made and seconded. Any discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor? Aye. And that motion passes. Okay. So our main item on the docket tonight. Welcome. Is the communication for me about updating about the city hall, space,

[0:36] And just to give us a little refresher on that, so this has been a sort of ongoing discussion.

[0:43] We know at the sort of around this time, December, last year, the Maronite did a communication

[0:51] about the space study and acknowledging the challenges of the space issues.

[0:56] Here at City Hall, particularly as it relates to the police department and particularly the

[0:59] female police locker rooms but generally the police department and then we've

[1:04] been through a few different explorations where we are now is since we had the

[1:12] recommendation from the administration to purchase the one-road building as we

[1:16] were considering that potential possibility we also wanted to do all the due

[1:21] diligence on the various possible options as well as the potential costs and

[1:27] in benefits of doing that worn road purchase and rehabilitation.

[1:35] So since that time, Vice President Baker,

[1:39] Councilman Evans and myself have formed a working group working with the planning department

[1:43] and the administration to go through some of the questions that council members had been asking

[1:49] in terms of what are the possible options to solve the space issues,

[1:53] use, how much would each option potentially cost?

[1:56] What are the operational and customer service pros and cons of each?

[2:01] So as we've worked through that, I sort of narrowed those down into essentially three options,

[2:08] of course, there are many more options than that, but just to have a digestible conversation

[2:13] and kind of get our heads around this issue, we sort of centered around three specific options.

[2:19] So, how could an addition be built onto the current city hall of sufficient size to

[2:26] address the space issues and how much would that cost?

[2:29] How much would it cost to fully get and renovate the Warren Road Building in retrofit the

[2:34] current city hall into a justice center?

[2:36] And then some of the other questions, we also had the option of doing the small addition

[2:44] which was originally presented as an option as well that would just specifically address

[2:48] some of the police issues but not a lot of the other issues.

[2:52] And then some of the other questions we had were how do the city hall improvements previously

[2:58] laid out in the five year capital plan, for example, the window replacements fit into

[3:02] the overall budget and timing of the proposed project options and what are the ongoing operational

[3:08] costs and the customer service and efficiency pros and cons of each.

[3:12] So, since that time, we've been working with our consultants from Webber Murphy Fox.

[3:19] We're joined by David Thal from Webber Murphy Fox tonight, as well as our PMC consultants.

[3:25] So, we have Chris Penicci, thank you, and Ken Collins-Juck.

[3:32] We've wrote familiar with Ken, of course, from PMC.

[3:35] Here to kind of help us through some of those explorations.

[3:39] They've prepared a presentation to walk us through each of those.

[3:44] So before I jump over to them, Vice President Baker or Councilman Evans, do you have anything

[3:49] to add that I've left out there?

[3:53] Thank you, President Keppell.

[3:54] The only thing I'd add is that, you know, as we talked about earlier when, you know, the

[4:02] share priorities of space, the all-finding, extra space for the police department to meet

[4:07] the modern 21st century policing, but these, I want to caution folks as we go through

[4:14] these and I'm sure our consultants will help reiterate this point.

[4:18] This is not like, this is what a detailed cost would be.

[4:21] These are scale costs so that we understand kind of like orders of magnitude if we pick

[4:26] one route what it likely might be, but there's not a lot of detail on the bone to then provide

[4:31] that estimate.

[4:31] So it's very conceptual.

[4:33] I'm sure they will say that, but I just want to share with my colleagues in the public that

[4:36] But it is very conceptual.

[4:38] Thank you.

[4:39] That's a good point.

[4:40] We're just trying to get to the point where we had sort of Apple

[4:43] Staples comparisons of the three options.

[4:45] So all kind of at the same high-level conceptual.

[4:49] And we'll probably say those words repeatedly tonight.

[4:52] Okay.

[4:53] Any other comments?

[4:54] No for colleagues?

[4:56] All right.

[4:56] So I'll turn it over to Chris and David.

[5:03] You push the button, it should turn red, and then we should hear you. Okay, there we go. Perfect. It's a faint red. So good evening, everyone. My name is Chris Peneke. I am with PMC. I just wanted to do a quick introduction and then kind of give a little background on myself. I've been with PMC of almost a year and a half now, a little more part of that. I ran the cap work at Case Western Reserve University for about 10 years. So I have a lot of capital work experience from brand new buildings to a lot of existing buildings on campus. And then part of that I

[5:33] I was in practice for 20.

[5:36] So, worked on a lot of higher education as well as K-12 and government work.

[5:42] So, the first thing we want to do is go through the plans.

[5:46] Dave is going to take us through those tonight.

[5:47] Then we're going to talk a little bit about these conceptual project estimates and how we

[5:50] develop them.

[5:51] Karen's going to work us through some of the finance, the key tax pieces and then we're going

[5:56] to wrap it all up.

[5:57] So, that's kind of our agenda tonight.

[6:00] And with that, David, right.

[6:02] Great. Thank you. Thanks for having us tonight. Should we switch to the next slide? Okay, great.

[6:08] So I'm going to, yes, Chris mentioned just doing an overview of the three options are being

[6:14] presented today. And option one is where we started was we looked at every department in the

[6:24] building. In fact, it was called a space utilization study. We walked all 70,000 square feet

[6:31] of the city, documented it, to then be able to provide digital plans to then work from.

[6:38] Worked with all the department heads to look at the needs, the desires, and

[6:44] to see where we might be able to be more effective within the space of the building.

[6:48] And so that's where this came about.

[6:52] And while it has all the departments in their associated color blocking forms,

[6:59] There are some limitations in terms of growth.

[7:02] We did add a very small addition that would be to the east and that's on the rear side

[7:10] there that you use that little rectangle that comes out it basically fills what's existing

[7:15] parking along the east side there.

[7:18] And that then helped with some of the police departments locker room reconfigurations and allowing

[7:23] for a little bit more expansive on one of the floors for more office space and then possible

[7:31] more meeting room space up here.

[7:34] And that's where we landed here.

[7:36] We were asked to look at another scheme, which if we go to the next slide.

[7:43] This option begins to look at a much larger addition, an addition that would bring the police

[7:52] department to a square footage that made sense for expansion and growth, and I believe

[8:00] there's one other slide for option, there we go.

[8:03] And then all the other departments, this plan is showing the second floor where planning

[8:09] and development and building and housing which are down on the lower level would come up

[8:15] to the second floor, and then the police would then grow into the addition on the other

[8:22] two floors. So that's this was option two with the large addition that this is towards

[8:29] the east but it's on the front of the building and it's not quite a zero lot line. It pretty

[8:34] much terminated just before the tree line.

[8:40] This option three to do the what was mentioned

[8:44] in apples to apples comparison was also to look at the departments of that would be relocated

[8:50] as proposed to go into the Warnrobe building, doing a blocking diagram similar to some of the other schemes here in this building.

[9:01] And this is just, again, high level.

[9:04] The departments might go here, they might be in other areas, but really it was about looking at the floor plates,

[9:10] what exists, what might work within the existing building renovation.

[9:17] and where a possible new addition might need to be added in order to really fit all the

[9:22] program and the modern needs of accessibility. So, elevator, scare, and some other programs.

[9:29] And I believe the next slide, this shows the areas that are not in color are the areas of the departments that are proposed to move to

[9:40] And then these are the areas in which the police department would grow into.

[9:45] And in one of our former studies where we showed how the police department would

[9:51] would grow into this, was one of the schemes.

[9:54] It's not this, but it basically takes the area that aren't not covered.

[10:07] So what you're seeing in front of you are three conceptual project estimates. So it's a project estimate includes construction cost as well as all the soft cost. So anything that would involve from that project, soup to nuts, but they are very high level. This is a parametric at best so it could swing 10 to 15% depending on scope, as well as market conditions. So we're really going to keep saying that tonight.

[10:32] So people are reiterating that.

[10:35] So the first, and they're also based on a mixture of three things.

[10:39] Webber Murphy Fox, and they have in house structure management group.

[10:43] So they provided the construction cost estimate.

[10:47] Then we layered in PMC, we layered in soft cost of pieces.

[10:52] And then there's this third bucket, including city projects that were ongoing or ones that were planned.

[10:59] So that's what you're going to see here.

[11:00] And I'll go through the first option one and then you'll see how it works with option two and three so option one

[11:06] Renovating city hall with a small annex addition or small addition in an annex renovation about 12.8 million for hard construction costs

[11:15] Any services if they are around 10% would be about 1.2 million

[11:20] FF any one you describe what any services mean forever. Oh, sorry. Sorry. Yes. The public's you're right. You're right

[11:27] Sorry, Councilor Smith, thank you.

[11:29] So any sort of architectural engineering surfaces,

[11:32] those are at so with anything that would be required to facilitate the design for the building.

[11:39] So all your mechanical, your electrical, your plumbing, your technology.

[11:42] Those are in close-up structure, so that's what David works on.

[11:48] So that's what any service is.

[11:50] So FFNE is your furniture, fixtures in your equipment.

[11:53] If you're taking the building, drop, shake it down and everything that falls out of it, that's a good way to say

[11:58] what FF&E is, depending if you get new furniture, you some of the existing that number could change a bit, but it was estimated at

[12:05] 1.4 million by your team. And then the next one is really, it's one of those ones that people don't want to admit. It's needed, it's a construction, owner construction

[12:15] contingency. And what are these four? These are for the unknowns. Sometimes there's the only of the own unknowns, but these are

[12:21] It's truly the unknowns.

[12:22] It's not behind the walls.

[12:23] You can't see the stuff that the contractor's not going to be responsible for that hits projects.

[12:29] And having worked on so many projects and in old buildings, you're always going to find something.

[12:34] So really, you want to preserve money in your budget for when those things happen.

[12:40] And of course, there's always those things you forget about.

[12:42] As you're going through the course of design, you might find out after when you're construction.

[12:46] I really like to do this, and we're in here right now, or someone changes in administration.

[12:50] Things always happen, it always happens, it comes up.

[12:53] So that's what the owner's contingencies for.

[12:55] There are other contingencies that are baked into the construction cost.

[12:59] There's design and bidding contingencies, there's escalation contingencies.

[13:03] Those are all lumped up right now in the $12.8 million, which David's firm has accounted for.

[13:09] Again, very high level.

[13:11] And then the next item would be additional soft costs, things that, again, people don't think about moving, utilities, legal work, technology.

[13:20] You can see there's a lot of robust technology in here to have this stuff either transferred or bought new, would be a lot of money.

[13:27] Testing, you have to test if it's a new building, you're testing all your structure, you're testing your foundations.

[13:32] Insurance, you're going to carry your own insurance builders risk, or you're going to put it on the contractor.

[13:37] sector, all those things you have to think through. That could be a lot of money. Sometimes

[13:42] you'll have, in this case, you're a city group, maybe you have to pay for permits, maybe

[13:46] you won't, maybe you'll, if there's no networks. You want to charge yourself? I've seen, I've

[13:51] seen cities do that. So, I mean, that's all part of the project cost, right? Then it gets

[13:58] down to there's three, we identify that we know about, there's probably a fourth one that

[14:02] I'm not sure the boilers were that sets,

[14:04] but one is the elevator project.

[14:06] That was estimated at a million dollars.

[14:09] The wayfinding project was 170,000.

[14:12] And then the window replacement,

[14:14] which we bumped up a little bit,

[14:15] it was less than, it was like 2.5.

[14:18] I think we put it at 2.7 million

[14:20] because I think it was a few years ago.

[14:22] So your window replacement for the whole facility

[14:25] amies our original windows.

[14:27] So we came up with a grand total for this option one

[14:31] at 21.4 million, and that does not include renovation to the existing jail or supports

[14:37] bases. That wasn't part of this, so I just want to make sure that that's known when

[14:42] you're putting your net still out there that hasn't was not put in this cost figure. Any

[14:48] questions on one, or are you going to go through all three of them, and then are there any

[14:51] questions?

[14:52] I just had a question on the the owner's contingency.

[14:58] Did you use us?

[15:00] Is it a similar percentage for each of these? How does that question? It's a great question. In a renovation of this nature, old buildings, we like to carry at least 10%. It could even get greater. It may sound like it's inverse, but the less you're doing, the more unknown you're getting into. So if I were taking a building down, and I would do a gut renovation, and it bound the structure, you still would need some, but it's like, you can pry back that down a little bit.

[15:29] because you're removing all your, all your unknowns,

[15:33] depending on how, at what point in time

[15:37] you, you put that into the, let's say it,

[15:40] you had to gut it before you entered the contract,

[15:43] but 10% is usually what we hold for these type of things.

[15:47] I mean, again, I don't want to get into in-depth on it,

[15:51] but you could definitely spend it.

[15:54] Dave, sorry.

[15:56] That's a little number, Stephen.

[15:57] Thank you. I'm just I'm a little confused at the numbers here because it's not quite matching up. So I see the construction cost and that's 12.8.

[16:06] The A and E service is 1.2.

[16:11] F F E is 1.4. The owner can tangency and then it goes on with that next phrase in parentheses is that the 1.2 and then the other soft cost or is that all part of one thing there?

[16:26] and then does the legal technology testing match up with 642?

[16:33] Can you explain which?

[16:35] These are all separate numbers.

[16:38] I think the math would be correct.

[16:40] Oh, you're not seeing the line.

[16:42] There should be a line between owner's contingency and other soft cost.

[16:46] Okay, so other soft cost is where that's 642.

[16:53] Is that right?

[16:55] Yes, correct.

[16:55] Correct.

[16:56] Other soft costs, moving utilities, legal technology, testing insurance, AV and art,

[17:02] end of parenthesis, maybe there, should be to explain that phrase, thank you.

[17:09] So then that is the 642.

[17:11] Correct.

[17:12] Thank you very much.

[17:14] Other Council members, questions before we go on?

[17:18] Members of the administration?

[17:20] No.

[17:20] Okay.

[17:21] Take it away.

[17:23] Okay.

[17:24] Okay, so option number two is a renovation of City Hall with a larger addition.

[17:30] So you're renovating 53.9,000 square feet with light to moderate renovation.

[17:36] I think as David alluded to that would be you're not completely gutting it.

[17:41] You're doing finishes in certain areas, maybe ceilings, maybe lighting, some rooms would

[17:45] might get just paint that when they were figuring out it was kind of a blend, a blend.

[17:51] a blend. So this is it we're starting in the middle point and so the cost for

[17:57] that was a 20 million 20.5 million to do that work the renovation plus also

[18:04] renovating the annex any services again 10% of that work FF&E 1.4 million we

[18:13] just carried the number again this is high-level you could debate and whether

[18:16] or not it should be a little higher because it's a little greater space but we

[18:20] carried the number. The owners continued to see, again, 10% so that would be $2 million.

[18:26] Soft costs would be a little larger because it's a figure space, so even though it's, well, she's the, so that's one point.

[18:33] Yeah, one million. And then the three projects, the elevator, the wayfinding in the window.

[18:40] The one project, like I said, I mentioned before, that's not in here, are the boilers. When I walk through the building, I know you're doing the boiler project,

[18:46] better know what's that's worth and when that's going to be done that might be

[18:50] done even before I don't know what the timeline that is. Does anybody know? No idea.

[18:58] We've got a great old boiler. Those things are work horses they made. It's the

[19:01] original one but they're not efficient and it's behind this useful life but it

[19:04] definitely by the way this building is extremely well maintained so hats off to

[19:09] the person who does it just walking around in it just a great job. I've walked a

[19:14] A lot of buildings this one is really well maintained, so I want to state that.

[19:19] That's my book.

[19:20] Thank you for the presentation and just a quick terminology clarification.

[19:26] So the top of option two, first of all, GSF, what's the G part?

[19:30] Gross.

[19:31] Gross square feet.

[19:32] How's that different than square feet?

[19:34] It's just same deal.

[19:36] Okay, net and gross.

[19:38] Gross is a viewer to draw a line throughout the whole building, around the whole building.

[19:42] It was because we didn't have all the specific numbers and net would be net spaces less the walls

[19:48] Okay, right. So this is rough cut and not walking around with a

[19:55] Measuring tape. Secondly

[20:00] I'd like to moderate, means what? A blend. So because it's very high level, I'm talking to David, we were going through various spaces, I go, what about this one? Well, that one probably a little bit more because we're removing walls. So then now you're removing walls, you're not your touch and ceiling, as you're touching all the floors, you're basically that one's a little heavier. This room, this one room might be just used as is, so it might be just paint and carpet. Yeah, so there are areas that we had investigated that obviously

[20:29] would need maybe more minor renovation, maybe modern and more major.

[20:35] More major, I would say, in some of the police area where the locker rooms and showers,

[20:41] you have plumbing fixtures, you have mechanical, you have a lot of it, that would be more

[20:45] major.

[20:47] In the, say, the lower level where we're housing and planning and development are maybe it's

[20:54] okay to kind of slip in and grow into it as is.

[20:59] Maybe refresh the lighting, maybe refresh the finishes,

[21:02] but in terms of, there's a balance of private offices

[21:05] in open space and maybe that would be perfect

[21:07] for some of the expansion that would be needed.

[21:09] That would be more minor.

[21:11] So when we were looking at these high level numbers,

[21:16] you know, we were looking at about $100 a square foot

[21:19] for more minor, 150 for moderate and 200 for major.

[21:24] Okay, so you're classing your establishing broad buckets

[21:31] and making broad estimates, and then it seems the cost driver

[21:34] is the total square, gross square footage in each between

[21:38] at least one and two, option one and two, right?

[21:41] That's the driver here is.

[21:42] Right, and with two, there's a larger new addition.

[21:46] So it's an addition that you is going to, part of its underground, there's some earth

[21:56] work that needs to be moved, you know, so it's all of that was figured in.

[22:01] Well, and if I'm following correctly, there should be little to no owner's contingency

[22:07] for the new, unless we think of the Lakewood Hospital site where we did find underground

[22:16] So hold my fire now and okay, thank you.

[22:27] All right, I'll continue then.

[22:29] So option three is probably is the largest of the three options at 33,000 square foot

[22:36] worn road sites, the existing board of education building or the old board of education building,

[22:43] renovating that building.

[22:45] So what we thought in that building, it's a complete got renovation, it's 100-year-old

[22:50] structure, there's a lot of work to be done on it.

[22:53] We're looking at 17.5 million in construction costs.

[22:57] The property costs which we did put in here were less the sale of the annex building, so

[23:03] it was a guesstimate.

[23:05] We understood it was about 1.5 to purchase, and maybe you'd get a half a million to sell

[23:09] the annex.

[23:10] those numbers could be off, but we put a placeholder and there's some people

[23:14] understand that it's part of the equation, A&E services, again at 10%, 1.7 million,

[23:21] FF&E, back that down a little bit, at 1.2 million, because we still have the

[23:26] City Hall renovation below, as you'll see, and then owners contingency still

[23:31] keeping it high even though they're doing a gut renovation for several reasons.

[23:35] We still don't know what's going on with the foundation, there's water leaking in

[23:38] building. Once we take all the stuff, take the plaster and drywall off, we want to see

[23:43] what the structure looks like as their water mitigated through there as their structure

[23:48] we have to replace. There's just a lot of unknowns in a hundred-year-old building so we'd like

[23:56] to keep that contingency high for that reason. And then soft cost, adding the same soft cost

[24:02] applied in this project as well for a total of 24.1 million for the one road.

[24:10] Moving the city hall, so in this case, the city hall would not get an addition,

[24:15] use the building as the square footage to 53.9,000 gross square feet,

[24:23] renovating it on a lighter scale because we're not going to be doing as much when I have any

[24:27] addition so that was around $8.1 million.

[24:31] A&E services for that portion of work would be about $800,000.

[24:35] FF&E, we still kept high because we didn't know if you'd still be buying all new furniture

[24:40] because this is one of those ones there's equity, if you renovated a portion of it and

[24:44] only, no, I don't everybody gets new furniture, how would you want to approach it?

[24:47] Again, that can go up and down.

[24:49] This is parametric so we're trying to, we're just shooting in dark here, you're trying

[24:53] to hit it in the middle and it could be lower, it could be higher by 10%.

[25:02] And then owners contingency at around 800,000 and then soft cost, 400,000, and then the three

[25:11] respective projects that we've talked about before, with a total of 15.5 million, taking

[25:19] both of those projects in the consideration, adding them up at 39.7 million. So I went

[25:25] through that quickly. Are there any questions on option three? Well, how we drive the numbers?

[25:39] That's my understanding. Thank you.

[25:44] I know you were talking about owner contingency here and I'm

[25:48] just curious about comparisons with options two and three and why there's such a difference there

[25:56] it would seem like if you're doing light-to-moderate building renovations in both of these places that

[26:02] But what you would discover in one situation would be the same thing that you would discover in the other situation.

[26:09] So you're saying option two from region correctly, option two and the second part of option three in comparison?

[26:17] Yes. Or the aggregate of three.

[26:19] The second part of three.

[26:21] Right, so the difference of 1 million versus 816.

[26:27] Well, I think it's two, right, in option number two.

[26:31] I'm sorry to right to because it's right and then half of that because we did a that's a great

[26:36] That's a great question. So that was 10 percent maybe actually that should be a little higher

[26:41] Um on option three should be lower

[26:45] Option two maybe I'm not sure how you came up to your number. I'm just 10 percent that's 10 percent of the construction

[26:51] Okay, that's quite a difference. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. And again, it was

[26:58] Option two was a little more aggressive

[27:00] of because you would be moving more walls.

[27:02] Option three, you have a lot of room so that the thought was,

[27:06] they would be utilizing the rooms as is.

[27:08] Probably not the most efficient, but you can keep the walls

[27:11] in place, so you're not opening the walls,

[27:13] you're not experiencing a lot of unknowns.

[27:16] So it was, it's a guess to the minute at this point,

[27:17] because you're at this parametric level.

[27:20] Thank you.

[27:21] That's my bullet.

[27:24] To follow on the councilman's briefing,

[27:26] I think also the difference between option two and three

[27:28] is that option two proposes a new addition of square footed in annex renovation, and I think option three does not do either of those things.

[27:38] So more is going on for option two that's driving the present city hall cost.

[27:46] That's some it's higher.

[27:47] Thank you.

[27:48] If I may add to that briefly, the total contingency for option three is around two and a half million.

[27:59] That's probably the better comparison between option two and option three is the two and a half to two.

[28:04] Thank you.

[28:08] Other questions from council members?

[28:10] Where we are so far?

[28:12] Dr. Brankton?

[28:13] Thank you, President Keppel.

[28:15] Just a couple quick questions as I'm trying to take notes on everything here.

[28:19] I was wondering what number per square foot was used for new construction to start with?

[28:25] That's for

[28:30] option one.

[28:33] If they're different throughout, I assumed maybe it was the same number used for new construction

[28:39] on all three, but if they're different, I think the front addition would be more expensive

[28:43] because of the amount of soil that would need to be removed.

[28:48] But do you have any of those numbers?

[28:51] So maybe I'll just say my questions and then you can look into it.

[28:54] So that was one.

[28:55] And then the second was, what did you use for the, so there was low mod high, 100,

[29:02] 150, 200.

[29:04] So looking for the new construction.

[29:06] And then what number did you use for a square foot for the renovation of Warn Road?

[29:11] And then the last question was comparing the raw construction numbers that were originally

[29:18] provided from your firm on these options, the raw construction number on these are higher.

[29:24] So I wondered if there was a reason that you could explain that it's higher.

[29:33] So I could, yes, I can speak to where we came up with the existing building renovation

[29:42] for Warren Road and how that's different from this building.

[29:46] Was that one of the questions?

[29:48] No.

[29:49] No, I'm sorry that wasn't one of the questions.

[29:50] Okay, so the first one was just what so worn road what what number did you use for renovation for square foot for worn road?

[30:00] And then second was what number did you use for new construction for the additions on city hall, existing city hall. And then third, comparing the estimates from your firm for these options. The hard hard costs, the hard construction costs were less on the first estimates that you provided than this. So I wondered what the difference was, why they're higher now. And that's just for the hard cost. I understand.

[30:29] and that we included, you included,

[30:32] and this one, the elevator project,

[30:33] well, the elevator wasn't, but the windows weren't in,

[30:36] so that ain't the total cost,

[30:37] but I'm just looking at that base construction cost

[30:40] and why that's higher now.

[30:46] Okay, so I can speak to option one,

[30:51] the addition, we were looking at around 440,

[30:55] this word, but,

[30:58] or 3767,

[31:02] renovations were for City Hallward around at 150, which is what we thought would be a

[31:09] debt-blended cost between minor and moderate and major, 150, and the NX ended up being

[31:16] around 167, so still within that range, so that was option 1.

[31:24] option 2.

[31:32] This is the new front edition. We had that at around 500 or foot 4.95 and

[31:47] the

[31:48] same numbers for the renovation that blended rate of around 150 or so that was option

[31:56] and one in option two, the new construction for three was rated around 500, and that's

[32:08] where we proposed, and again, that was our look at the blocking diagram and felt that

[32:17] you needed a small new addition even on the Warn Road to have the lobby, the security

[32:25] elevator, new fires there, and so that was around that 500 square foot. So those

[32:32] are the new renovation costs, the new building renovation costs, and then the

[32:39] building renovation costs were options one and two. For option three, the

[32:44] Warren Road, we had that, which I don't think that was one of your questions.

[32:52] that was at that more major renovation cost and we had that as a range but the

[32:57] last one of the other questions I think they hit is option two the

[33:01] construction cost at 20.5 million it's 17 million for higher plus the

[33:06] contingencies and escalation that we have built in their number which comes up to

[33:09] 20 million 500 so it's 17 0 8 4 0 2 5 plus 3 4 1 6 8 0 5 that's how we developed

[33:21] That's $20 million.

[33:25] So we...

[33:26] Thank you.

[33:26] Through President Hubbard.

[33:28] Maybe this...

[33:28] We could just sit down and...

[33:29] This is not for tonight.

[33:30] Yeah, we can go through it.

[33:31] But I'd still have just a couple of questions.

[33:33] Sure.

[33:34] Sure, absolutely.

[33:35] Not tonight on the floor.

[33:36] Thank you.

[33:38] Thank you.

[33:39] And again, not to keep driving home the high-level conceptual nature of these numbers.

[33:45] But, you know, as we're trying to imagine an addition that's a blank box and placing things

[33:52] However, but just trying to get a sense of the scale of each of these projects and what

[33:56] we might be looking at.

[33:57] And I think maybe you did mention it before, I'm not going to sit on it.

[34:00] We tried to, one of the goals of this thing is exercise was to make an equal look at all

[34:05] three options.

[34:06] So one wasn't way to heavy the other or had more investigated the other because then it's

[34:10] not a fair comparison.

[34:12] I think one of the charges you gave us is that we really want to understand these things,

[34:15] the three apples here, you know, what we have to deal with, even though they are different

[34:19] and cost.

[34:20] So one's more expensive, you know, one's an apple, honey crisp, and the other ones, or whatever, or Fuji, but, you know, using those food analogies, that's what the goal of this was.

[34:30] I just want to make sure that people understand it. It was kind of an even approach to all of them.

[34:37] The option three part of the construction cost was also the need for the additional driveway

[34:44] and those kinds of things, or is that part of that per square foot cost?

[34:50] You mean as far as Warren goes?

[34:51] As far as Warren goes.

[34:52] Yeah, we took a, when we sat down and looked at it, it wasn't just the building, it was site

[34:56] development cost.

[34:57] How are we going to have a new approach to City Hall?

[35:00] What we're going to do with parking, everything from mechanicals, where the mechanicals would probably go, is going to initial structure needed for that, and go up top on the side, is there going to be a generator, where would that be located. You start to get into start thinking, sexually, how all these costs can really add up. Right now, you have a generator for this building that does everything but the elevators and the chillers. But it handles all the rest. You're going to do that same thing there, or do you want to have a full generation.

[35:28] that's just a question on the road.

[35:30] That's how prices can go up and down, right?

[35:33] It's you keep asking questions

[35:34] and you keep saying, how do you, what do you want to design?

[35:41] But a couple more clarifying questions.

[35:44] So the, it needs that you just named,

[35:49] that the chair just named, they're found where,

[35:52] where do you group the driveway and paving

[35:56] and parking costs in which category?

[35:58] So, in our budget we included, we had identified, or it was identified together that there needed to be a new drive and parking from Warren Road and that got included in the new dollar.

[36:14] So that's just in construction, that's part of the new construction of the new addition,

[36:24] but it's part of the, what we're calling the Warn Road existing building representation.

[36:29] Wonderful.

[36:30] And then the methodology question, these are $20, $25, presumably.

[36:39] So we included through 2026.

[36:42] tax. We accounted for escalation through 2026. So kind of cost-aliving increased

[36:51] equivalency in expenses. Calculate your best guess at inflation and bake that

[37:00] into these numbers through vital core. 5%. So historically, historically, before we

[37:08] We had this big last few years when it went crazy.

[37:12] You could have always assumed 4%.

[37:13] Some years it was two, some years it was three.

[37:17] But over the time, historically you could say 4%.

[37:20] Now the last few years when we had crazy eight or nine percent,

[37:24] it changed the whole game, it changed the whole model.

[37:27] Worth seeing construction prices still in that four or five.

[37:30] For next quarter they're still going up.

[37:32] Steel's going up, copper's going up,

[37:34] aluminum's following that parity

[37:36] because they figure if copper goes higher

[37:38] silicon aluminum, so that changes all your wiring.

[37:41] You want to go from copper to aluminum, all those things add, and then, of course, the

[37:47] tariff world.

[37:48] That's another whole.

[37:50] Now, any option, one, two, or three, is not expected to be permitted, contracted,

[37:59] developed, installed, you know, commenced, and then we're not cutting the ribbon by 12 months

[38:04] from now on any of these options, right?

[38:07] So, how does any of us estimate this a two-year project,

[38:13] a three-year project?

[38:14] How do you control for that?

[38:16] Or is that, am I still on show?

[38:19] We'll have the estimation slide.

[38:20] And it's our best guess.

[38:22] That's a very good question.

[38:23] And we're going to get into this.

[38:24] It's an aggressive, best guess.

[38:26] Well, that's our last slide.

[38:28] So, yeah.

[38:29] Any more questions on these?

[38:31] Or we can,

[38:36] again, I think you're on the next slide.

[38:37] Next slide, please, Council, good to see you.

[38:40] Thanks for having us tonight.

[38:43] In the grand magnitude of the project, scenarios,

[38:46] the economic impacts estimated are not very large,

[38:49] but I'll talk to you through two scenarios

[38:52] where the war and road building remains a private use

[38:56] and happens to get developed as a private end use.

[38:59] Could be residential, could be commercial, could be mixed use.

[39:02] We'll probably require incentives.

[39:05] And I was informed tonight that there may be an incentive

[39:07] of request pending for that property or the legislation was approved so these numbers

[39:13] need to be updated so I'll talk about the updated numbers and we'll send them to after

[39:18] the meeting.

[39:19] But from an income tax standpoint that doesn't change based on the property taxes so for

[39:25] the one road property made some assumptions on commercial and residential use and blended

[39:30] the two scenarios to make things as equal as possible.

[39:34] the one year income tax estimate would be around 21,000 per year.

[39:38] Multiply that by 30, that's 640,000 over 30 year period.

[39:43] For the annex building, it's much smaller, it's a smaller site, smaller building, doesn't assume high rise going in.

[39:50] So the average impact on income taxes, we have a 5,500 a year, and 166,000 over 30 years.

[39:58] the property.

[40:00] 30 taxes is where things have changed tonight. The annex building, we estimate around 3,000 in city taxes per year if that's a private use. At 96,000 over 30 years in new taxes for the schools 10,000 per year and 300,000 over 30 years. Now, it could be a project that gets abated potentially. So that could affect things too. On the Board of Education building on Warn Road,

[40:29] So given the tax incentives that were passed, there would be no new city taxes over the

[40:37] 30 years because there's a tax statement for 15 years and a non-school tiff for the

[40:41] last 15 years of the 30 year period for the school taxes take that 1.4 million divided

[40:47] in half, so that would be a 700,000 over 30 years as the school's taxes.

[40:53] So, you're looking at a swing on the income tax front of half a million more per year

[41:00] from the Warren site being redeveloped as a private use on the property tax side.

[41:05] It's double the impacts for the schools but within 100 grand either way for city taxes.

[41:15] Again, these are small impacts compared to the overall maybe if Director Bianton has any

[41:20] questions or comments to add. Okay. Happy to answer your questions. Or anyone else in the

[41:26] administration?

[41:29] No. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. And you'll send us an updated side of

[41:34] this. Thank you.

[41:37] Okay. So the last slide is really a summary and then there's this cash

[41:41] flows which you were talking about before. So the again, it's to summarize the first option

[41:48] Then estimated project cost at $21.4 million, $62,000 plus, of course, where a fee to renovate in a new space.

[41:57] No change to tax revenue, program fits, but there's no room for growth.

[42:02] It makes a fair statement, city functions stay in one location, and there's no renovation at the exit to the existing jail or sparse spaces.

[42:10] options. Option 2, you're at $30,984,985, $74,872 gross-grift fee to renovate in a new

[42:23] space. No change to tax revenue. Program fits with room for growth. City functions

[42:31] stay in one location. And again, no renovation to the existing jail and support spaces.

[42:38] options. Option three is at $39.7 million. $90,459 grocery to renovate in a new space.

[42:49] Tax revenue, as Ken mentioned, there are some changes, so these numbers might get tweaked

[42:54] a bit, but it was based on the earlier projections and his spreadsheet. There would be a $15,800

[43:03] lost every year of average income tax because it would now be a city on

[43:09] property and the property tax would be less $60,000. That's with the assumption that

[43:14] the annex would be sold. And occupied and redeveloped. Yeah. And occupied and redeveloped.

[43:21] Yeah. All those assumptions. A program fits with plenty of room for growth. City

[43:27] functions are in two locations and again no renovation to the existing jail and

[43:31] support spaces. From a cash flow perspective. Now this is aggressive, and we don't know

[43:37] what the delivery method is and how you're going to do it. There's different ways you're

[43:40] going to do it. I know one thought was going, um, design bill with the criteria architect.

[43:44] But really we think, and maybe it shouldn't be fiscal year, it should be calendar year,

[43:49] apologies on that. Um, that next year, 26, we'd be spent in design. And then in tail end,

[43:56] you might be able to pull it off. If you're aggressive with design and you know what you

[43:59] want, you can bid by the end of the year and be ready for construction in year 27.

[44:05] So the first one is probably a two-year project plus a little bit.

[44:09] The second one is definitely a three-year project, and the third one is definitely, well,

[44:17] it's probably four years' duration.

[44:19] So actually the second one is probably four years, I'm sorry, because you have your design.

[44:22] So it's really a four-year project, the second one, and a four-year project on the third

[44:25] one as well, but you're really spending a lot more money on the last end, because you're

[44:30] renovating that last building after you build, after you renovate the property on Foreign

[44:37] Road.

[44:38] You want to renovate that first, move everybody in, and then renovate the other space.

[44:42] At least that would be the...

[44:44] Seen the logical way to do it, but you can do it otherwise too.

[44:51] And these are high-level, but this kind of gives you a sense of what your cash flows would

[44:55] be.

[44:58] Thank you.

[44:59] I'm gonna go

[45:00] Councilman Hamilton Steiner, first. Thank you, President Kepel. Okay, so just to clarify the project

[45:07] of cash flow and the planning. So either way, either option one, two, or three, that first

[45:13] year would be like the planning, the bidding, all of that stuff, right? Essentially, okay,

[45:17] so that's like essentially year zero. And then the subsequent years would be year one,

[45:25] year two, year three. So when you're saying option two and three are going to be three

[45:29] year projects. That's what you mean. And option one would be two years.

[45:33] Correct. Okay. Great. And then thank you for clarifying the fiscal year. We were just having

[45:38] a little discussion before that. How confusing that is our fiscal year goes January

[45:43] wanted December 30th. So you could replace it with calendar year. So it's clear to people. But

[45:50] So yeah, we'll make that change in the revised copies.

[45:55] Yeah, yeah.

[45:56] Just not because yeah.

[45:57] Yeah, yeah.

[45:57] Who was a yearly thing, but I should have put fiscal.

[45:59] I should have put calendar year.

[46:01] Yeah.

[46:01] No, it's fine.

[46:02] So we'd be looking at potentially either option.

[46:05] If we were to move forward at some point next year, 1.2, 1.5

[46:10] or 1.6, approximately coming out of next year's budget.

[46:14] Correct.

[46:15] Thank you.

[46:16] High level.

[46:17] Correct.

[46:18] Okay.

[46:20] Okay.

[46:21] Other council member, do you have something else?

[46:24] I'm just more clarifying questions.

[46:26] So this is all very helpful.

[46:30] Back to the dollars question.

[46:32] So at the bottom of this slide, again, these are shall we call them $26 across the schedule

[46:40] just for uniformity.

[46:43] Okay.

[46:44] Right, so we may find that it creeps up, but it'd be, yeah, all of them would be plus 5% ish, we correct.

[46:54] For open design, you're probably the least risk as far as the cost escalation part goes, because you're not building something.

[47:01] It's professional fees and those are about, that's probably in that range, you're not going to pay all the professional fees because they have construction administrations.

[47:09] And so if you take the A&E fees, you know, the architectural engineering fees, two-thirds

[47:14] of it will be spent during the Semitech design, design development, and contract documents

[47:20] in a traditional method, right?

[47:22] So that's about two-thirds, a little more than two-thirds of their fee.

[47:24] The rest will be spent during construction.

[47:26] A portion, but a sizeable portion.

[47:29] Yeah, but you'll have some other testing, you'll have other consultants upon that.

[47:32] So these are range costs.

[47:34] Okay.

[47:35] That answered my question.

[47:36] Thanks.

[47:36] And then the room for growth statements, actually before I ask that, do the annexes assume

[47:44] to be sold and redeveloped in option 3 only and retain for ownership in option 1 and

[47:49] 2?

[47:50] At this point, yes.

[47:51] Okay.

[47:51] Just to understand what we're looking at.

[47:53] And then the room for growth statement, those are insightful and important.

[47:58] So, how do we know that option 1's no room for growth, but option 2 and 3 have room for

[48:05] growth?

[48:05] with your patient out on?

[48:08] Yes, so at the end of option one, we looked at it

[48:14] and that's when it was discussed that the police

[48:18] in courts, mostly the police, they needed room to grow

[48:24] in order to get the correct, if you will,

[48:30] square foot per person, and comparable

[48:32] to other municipalities.

[48:35] So, that's where really the growth needed to happen the most.

[48:40] With regards to all the other departments, we were able to reconfigure and find spaces

[48:48] throughout the building, but there wasn't really a three-year growth, a five-year growth

[48:53] in terms of...

[48:56] Okay.

[48:57] I think I followed, but let me make sure, though.

[48:59] So, option one does propose a small addition, would that small addition meet the needs of the police department?

[49:11] It did not, and that's why it went on policy and so on.

[49:15] Option, that the needs get more fully met in option two and three, that's the point.

[49:23] Okay, and let's say we do one of those, and we're done at the end of the project, now the police are in an expanded space.

[49:33] We have no more room for growth, right? Is that what we're saying? In other words, is behind your statement that there's room for growth that a future phase beyond the needs understood today about the need for police expansion.

[49:48] Let's say we take care of those, are you saying we're baking in additional growth potential

[49:54] beyond that at the end of option two or three, or that's not what the phrase means?

[50:00] So, we were able to work together with the police department, so look at the programs that needed to happen, not only currently, but in the future within that, within that expanded square footage for, for police, within option two, and then subsequently. Okay, so that's really the room for growth. Well, it's there are really a statement about the ability of those options to meet the expanded space needs for the police department, is that right?

[50:29] I don't achieve a few seem like you have some day interjecting.

[50:35] Not being fully aware of option two at all.

[50:39] I think what Mr. Big Dave over there was trying to say was this option three that we had discussed

[50:49] or that I was a part of meets the needs now, as it for future growth, I think it's just

[50:58] What we discussed was meeting the needs of today, okay, is that what you mean by what you're presenting here?

[51:05] So it's what may be a little bit confusing as well is that we did five options and the options have been renumbered okay

[51:12] That's where they're not

[51:16] Let me maybe where we can clarify here is when we talk about room for growth are we talking about personnel growth or

[51:25] for the usage of the space.

[51:28] Personnel growth was my understanding, I mean, there's not any anticipation of growing

[51:34] more space after one of these.

[51:37] Okay.

[51:37] So, in terms of, I guess, the question then is, if we're saying option one would get

[51:45] us a female locker room, maybe some things, but it doesn't give us any wiggle room for

[51:52] the future in terms of police, but I guess my question is when we're talking about

[51:59] room for growth, well, I have two. One is probably more of an architectural question,

[52:03] and one is more of a staffing question. So the architectural question being, so option

[52:09] one was one specific solution of the small addition on the side. But of course, that's just

[52:16] one possible design solution that just for the sake of getting our heads around this issue that we have a small addition, a large addition, the two building solution.

[52:29] So the large addition accomplishes a great deal of square footage and so if we're talking about personnel growth versus the use of space growth.

[52:41] I guess that's what I'm trying to get my head around too is option one is a small addition

[52:45] but could that be phased?

[52:48] So if you did option one and you solve the worst immediate stress and then in a couple

[52:55] years you go up or you go out or something like that, you know.

[53:00] So that's kind of when we're talking about room for growth, we're talking about the project

[53:05] I'm going to state this and you can tell me if I'm right or wrong architects.

[53:08] So, room for growth meaning that if we get with any of these options that there's in the

[53:18] structure as laid out at the high level conceptual, there's room for additional personnel or use

[53:25] of space that isn't currently contemplated.

[53:28] Does that make sense?

[53:30] So, regardless of option that we're saying, if there's room for growth, it means that more

[53:36] more people could be in this space than are squeezed in the design?

[53:41] So in option one with that very small addition to the east, it really only solves a few

[53:49] things.

[53:50] It may have moved like training and the roll call room and to be able to squeeze in with

[54:01] the locker room would go for men's and then find a spot that would then take over a

[54:06] bobby space for the women's locker room. So it really,

[54:11] it doesn't give the

[54:13] amount of square footage that the police department needs.

[54:18] Yeah, no, I, I get that. I'm just trying to define the term because it's also, it's a

[54:25] design term in terms of we're trying to accomplish X number of square feet per

[54:29] person, and that doesn't happen here, but it does happen this one.

[54:33] And then the other question is that's making assumptions to about the other use of

[54:41] city halls.

[54:42] So if you bump out into planning, and then more planning department personnel work from

[54:46] home, and so then you have more flexibility in space, but that's not necessarily contemplated

[54:51] in that design.

[54:51] I'm just trying to get ahead around it.

[54:52] But I'm going to go to Vice President Baker.

[54:54] He knows more about this and can probably say it more articulately than I think.

[54:56] I think at this stage, I think what we're bumping up against.

[55:02] And so we're not at that program stage as I understand it. David maybe has a little bit more in-depth knowledge of that through his space study analysis that he and his firm did. But I think basically as a council and as a city and as a public we think about is, no bill does we have about 59 or 58,000 square feet of municipal police office space. Option 1, you get 63, option 2, you get 75, option 3, you get 90. I think that's where the term is.

[55:29] room for growth comes from, you just have more square footage, right?

[55:32] How you program that is a totally different detailed design question that kind of meets

[55:38] with the program, right?

[55:40] And each job classification probably has like a standard square foot per employee, and

[55:45] yeah, I'm getting a little bit over my skis, but so I think that in these particular sides

[55:50] what room for growth means is just you just have more square footage, right?

[55:53] Dedicated to that function, and you can figure out what to do with it because we don't have

[55:58] We have super detailed designs, we have conceptual counsel, what do we help work with the administration to say this is what we're willing to fund, this is what we think is the right option.

[56:08] In the immediate time we have a building that's for sale and we need to start making decisions and thinking about it critically.

[56:13] So I think that's what this does.

[56:15] It doesn't, we're getting into programming and that's very important, incredibly important, but we're just not there with this exercise.

[56:21] Is that correct?

[56:21] I mean, that is correct in order, I mean, in order to, so what was Conceptual

[56:32] Estimate 3 of 5 is now what 3 is, got it, and with the addition of renovating

[56:42] Warren Road. And that's the scheme where we did really

[56:48] look a little bit more at programming for the police department and for courts to know

[56:54] that they would have the appropriate amount of square foot needed per person for the functions.

[57:05] So there were certain concepts that had more detailed program than that.

[57:12] And I think what Chris's arm did is, you know, they just, you know, in looking at the

[57:20] amount of money, the amount of square footage, they just went by the totals and gave that

[57:26] square footage with regards to who gets what, you know, that's still, you know, it's still

[57:32] blocks.

[57:33] Yeah, I mean, we took a stab at it.

[57:36] Yeah, and that's part of, and I'm sorry, and I think one of the last things I'll mention

[57:41] is, you know, the blob out front, right?

[57:43] It doesn't have to go out the way it did.

[57:46] It could more hug the building.

[57:48] It's just, I think, conceptually speaking,

[57:50] what would happen if we added, you know,

[57:51] that amount of square footage of the building?

[57:53] In my eyes, you know, a fine employer in the city of Lakewood,

[57:57] but a school I don't like for sports reason,

[57:59] St. Ed's kind of did the same thing that came out on the front.

[58:02] Right.

[58:03] Yeah.

[58:05] I think the other part of my question that is,

[58:08] isn't regards to the person,

[58:09] and I think that's a bigger picture question,

[58:12] That isn't part of this exercise, but is important to think about, you know, is Councilman Bullock points out to us this we've been the city has had difficult financial times before at one point losing staff and I think every department except police and fire.

[58:29] And so just thinking operationally, if there is a plan to expand staffing and what those long range operation costs are, not just in police but in any department.

[58:39] that goes to ongoing operational costs and, you know, what size, how much space do we need for what size staff doing what?

[58:49] So those are kind of bigger picture questions that are outside of the sexer size, but it is part of this whole thought process for me.

[58:56] Council member Hamilton Steiner.

[58:58] Yeah, so going back to the whole room for growth and maybe this is more

[59:05] directed at Chief Fisher, you know, I think I don't know if it would be the

[59:10] appropriate. I know you said, you know, bigger picture personnel, but I think as

[59:14] far as the police, it would be nice to know what the future five-year, ten-year

[59:20] plan for the police force is in terms of recruitment, who we're going to be

[59:24] bringing in because then I think we can make a better decision, I think going back to your question about the physical sort of footprint of option one in the room for growth.

[59:39] If that were the option, would there be additional space to come back and add on?

[59:49] So if we're able to fit the police needs right now, would we be able to come back and do

[59:56] additional work?

[59:57] let's say in, you know, five years.

[1:00:00] We boom again, right? So could we come back? So I guess those are my questions, and I don't know if Chief Fisher, you want it to respond. So your question is staffing level. I see us maintaining the same level of staff. It's the, obviously, the demographics, the females, unfortunately, right now, in the male locker room or the dr. Br. locker room. Not only that, and not to get, again, this is high level conceptual, but the,

[1:00:29] I think Mr. Falken can also speak to is that the rooms right now as they're configured are an adequate, like the effective real evolve walk through.

[1:00:39] I mean, the desks and stuff like that.

[1:00:41] So, it's a hard question to answer, staff wise, I anticipate having maintained the staff, but

[1:00:46] obviously probably hiring more females still and specializing units and

[1:00:51] getting people that work spaces they need, they just don't have it right now.

[1:00:55] Thank

[1:00:57] you. And I would be interested to hear not necessarily tonight. This is again bigger conversation, but I know that there were that there was a lot of conversation that happened with the different departments about the types of spaces that they need because it is also in this concept of what type of spaces needed for what type of work and as well as the broader conversations to about in modern work area, you know, we all lived through COVID here at City Hall,

[1:01:27] And, you know, are we, do we need as much in-person workspace?

[1:01:32] And so, like, some of these conversations I'd be interested to, if that information has been gathered by the administration, I'd be interested to have some of that.

[1:01:39] That's my block.

[1:01:41] Thanks. Since maybe I partly opened the can of worms, but thank you to everybody for the discussion of room for growth.

[1:01:47] I got the answer. So I think what we're talking about is, does each alternative option how well or not well does it meet the known needs of today?

[1:01:57] day, and so I understand what we're talking about here.

[1:02:01] In terms of future expansion, I guess I'll put my cards in the table and say, I think

[1:02:10] we should hold that for a future phase not bacon into this because there's costs.

[1:02:14] If we over-engineer or over-expand, we're for sure committing extra square footage costs,

[1:02:21] I think what's driving these different estimate costs for the total square footage, at least

[1:02:26] at this conceptual stage right and we probably can't afford that you know to have an annex

[1:02:34] that's vacant for indeterminate future needs today when we could reasonably do it and probably

[1:02:42] really do what the council president just said you know redesign flexible use of people are in

[1:02:49] the office three days they're working from home two days we could probably find the new space

[1:02:55] within the existing footprint.

[1:02:57] I think that's the very approach by analogy

[1:02:59] that our new parking garage at the ASTO,

[1:03:02] now CASTO, property is going to do.

[1:03:05] We're going to have more functional spaces

[1:03:07] than physical spaces because of the smart coordination

[1:03:11] of that.

[1:03:12] The other thing just, I mean, historically,

[1:03:16] first of all, drives operational costs.

[1:03:20] This is a city budgeting, not this project budgeting,

[1:03:22] but every year we want to try to pay appropriate cost of living increases to the wages and then of course

[1:03:30] benefits keep going up and up and up and up and up and I was actually

[1:03:35] we offer good benefits in this in the city but that's not a zero cost so that kind of the

[1:03:40] rule of thumb or the policy is probably in our budget binders somewhere right in one of the policy

[1:03:45] and procedures is we are careful about adding new FTEs to the overall city.

[1:03:52] First I'm glad to hear the chief agree with your stateless maintain.

[1:03:57] And the challenge with probably all public safety is there's a cycling of people retiring,

[1:04:04] people graduating up in seniority, maybe they find a new position somewhere else and

[1:04:09] we've got to retrain them and we don't want to be the developmental league for other

[1:04:16] departments because there's a cost to us and that in all kinds of ways.

[1:04:22] It's a compliment but it's a compliment we don't really want.

[1:04:24] We want to retain our talent.

[1:04:26] So just maintaining a skilled quality workforce with the 99 sworn officers and then there's

[1:04:35] another 15, 20 leadership and administrative support in the police department is a lot.

[1:04:44] Probably director bindings department you guys are doing 250% of the work for each

[1:04:49] FTE you have you know I mean there's an argument you made that some departments do need

[1:04:54] more headcount but I think it's a good policy in general for us to do that call.

[1:05:06] The last little tidbit is, I think, traditionally, what we tried to do was use six sigma and other very business wonky improvements to improve our throughput. It wasn't that long ago that we were using triplicate carbons for building permits and so forth.

[1:05:27] that well we move to iPads and so on and so forth.

[1:05:29] So we're doing better and better,

[1:05:30] but I'm sure there's more productivity

[1:05:32] improvements that we can keep achieving

[1:05:34] so that our head count doesn't go up,

[1:05:36] but we're still doing a good job for the public

[1:05:38] and our customer service.

[1:05:40] So all of that aside, that's the programming thing,

[1:05:42] but that rushes up against the architecture

[1:05:47] and square footage questions.

[1:05:49] Thanks.

[1:05:50] I suppose I'm Baker.

[1:05:52] Thank you.

[1:05:52] And I kind of, as I see these,

[1:05:54] And by the way, you know, President Keppel, Councilman Evans and myself worked with Chris

[1:06:00] and David and Ken on this and, you know, we kind of, this was coalescing last week.

[1:06:05] So this is all new data for us, too.

[1:06:08] But as I think about it laid out this way, it's almost like us as a city and a public

[1:06:13] have, you know, if this is a continuum.

[1:06:16] And what I mean here is that what do you want to do, right?

[1:06:20] How much square footage do you want and you want it to be renovated space, existing space

[1:06:24] Do you want to have it in two different sites?

[1:06:25] Does that just the center model?

[1:06:27] So you can go all the way from on the left,

[1:06:29] even further than option one,

[1:06:31] to just renovate existing space, make it work, right?

[1:06:33] That's technically an option.

[1:06:35] All the way to option three, which is 90,000 square feet,

[1:06:40] but really within option one and two,

[1:06:42] that's where the float is, right?

[1:06:43] Like the addition could be 20,000 square feet.

[1:06:46] It could be 10,000, right?

[1:06:48] So it's, it's, and that's where I think

[1:06:52] We need to figure out what we need or is you know the warm row building the right route

[1:06:57] And so I think those are the things where now that we're seeing this really laid out those are the decisions

[1:07:05] We have to make and hopefully relatively soon

[1:07:10] Thank you, and I think that's part of why normally

[1:07:14] This point in the year when we're getting the budget

[1:07:18] Ordinance is presented at the full council meeting

[1:07:21] tonight, we would begin with budget hearings, but we're squeezing this in because it is very important.

[1:07:29] We all, this body, the administration, we've all recognized we need to address particularly

[1:07:35] the police space issues.

[1:07:37] So that's the priority, I think for everyone, I don't think that's a wild thing to say that

[1:07:42] we all want to make sure we address that, we want to make sure that we address it as we're

[1:07:47] going into budget season that has huge ramifications for the capital budget, whichever solution we also want to be respectful of the current owner of the Warren Road building and make sure we get them a decision in a relatively timely manner.

[1:08:01] So, hence why we have been working as diligently as possible as expeditiously as possible to get this high level conceptual apple stapples pulled together as quickly as we could to have this conversation tonight.

[1:08:19] Other questions from council members? Any questions or comments from administration? Director Mahoney?

[1:08:29] I know if there was at one point some analysis of how much more square footage the police department does need do you remember what that number was?

[1:08:44] I don't know exactly what that number is but I have it here and I can get that chair.

[1:08:49] Okay. And then my other question is option two there is no chance to move the annex over to City Hall in that option.

[1:08:56] So it does not provide enough room to move the annex operations over to City Hall.

[1:09:06] As the option to stands right now, it still needed the function of having the annex.

[1:09:15] But, you know, just like options do and discussions provoke ideas, it could be something depending

[1:09:25] depending on the direction, whether they could fit or not, but right now it was too much

[1:09:35] of a square footage to be able to move into City Hall knowing that there were all these

[1:09:41] other departments that needed to be worked out and to fit.

[1:09:48] So it almost seems to suggest that the police needed at least 16,000 square feet then.

[1:09:53] Yeah, I can look at the numbers. I think in total I had some total square footage of what the ideal

[1:10:00] Where footage would be, but that's okay. I think it may have been around that a little bit more in total.

[1:10:09] Mr. Director, so yeah, I had just a quick question. Do either option one or two include any additional space for the traditional administrative staff or the court? Or is that only contemplating expansion to accommodate the police department and what they currently need or might need in the future?

[1:10:27] So, option one that was done a couple of years ago, it really looked at every single department

[1:10:32] and had involved interviews with police, courts, finance, law, every department.

[1:10:41] And we looked at what the needs were, spaces and so really one was sort of, you know, looking

[1:10:48] at where the space, where there are spaces within this building that weren't being used

[1:10:54] is efficiently and so really it it about every and so we took that same idea into option

[1:11:03] two to be able to get the square footage needs that we found needed to happen for the

[1:11:10] police department.

[1:11:14] I hope that answered your question.

[1:11:15] Thank you.

[1:11:16] Yes.

[1:11:16] You're welcome.

[1:11:17] I think one of those things too is and it's a little hard to see in this but it is we do

[1:11:21] You have the renderings from Webber Murphy Fox or in that shared folder, which should

[1:11:27] have access to where you can blow them up more easily to see the detail, but one of

[1:11:33] those, I think it should be in there has the sort of hatch marks of that show where current

[1:11:42] space on option two, where it says which things are assigned and which are sort of unassigned

[1:11:48] and the existing departments and those sorts of things.

[1:11:51] So with the idea of that isn't necessarily all police space

[1:11:56] or things could be reconfigured and in again,

[1:12:00] to say high level conceptual again,

[1:12:02] but also that just for the purposes

[1:12:05] of trying to get our heads around this,

[1:12:08] we're talking about these sort of three options,

[1:12:11] but there are more than three options

[1:12:13] that exist in the world.

[1:12:15] Vice President Baker.

[1:12:15] Yeah, and to director Mahoney's point, I mean, you'd run the numbers if you the annexes

[1:12:20] 4,000 square feet right now and you need 4,000 square feet here, you just take 4,000 square

[1:12:24] feet times 500 bucks square foot for new building and that would be the additional 4,000 square

[1:12:28] feet.

[1:12:29] So I think it's, I don't want to oversimplify what David and Chris would do, but that's a rough,

[1:12:35] you know, so it's in the continuum, right? It's just what we want to do.

[1:12:43] I would just say quickly to just again looking at that option to the addition is just kind

[1:12:49] of a nebulous blob right now.

[1:12:52] And so when you're working from something that's pretty much a blank box, you have a lot

[1:12:55] more efficiency in design and the way things are laid out and how to get people in there.

[1:12:59] You do if you're working with an existing building where our constraints are going to run up

[1:13:01] again.

[1:13:02] So, I mean, I certainly think there's going to be ways you're going to find efficiencies

[1:13:05] in that addition to be able to build there in a better, smarter way than we're looking

[1:13:12] I think it's some of the renovations and areas.

[1:13:19] Other questions or comments?

[1:13:24] You want to have public comment on this topic?

[1:13:28] No?

[1:13:29] Okay.

[1:13:31] Last chance for questions or comments on this topic,

[1:13:34] because we do have another item on our agenda

[1:13:36] that I will move to if we do not have further.

[1:13:38] Once at this time.

[1:13:40] Yep, okay.

[1:13:41] Well, thank you very much.

[1:13:43] Gentlemen, if you want to go on with your evening,

[1:13:45] you're welcome to do so.

[1:13:46] Thank you.

[1:13:47] Thank you very much. All right, so we do have another item on the agenda for committee of the whole

[1:13:55] which is our appointment to the tree education and advisory board

[1:14:00] task force and I'm looking at council member Evans who did some work on our behalf on this topic.

[1:14:09] Yeah, do um,

[1:14:13] executive session. Uh, it doesn't have to be, but it can be. We notice that

[1:14:19] We notice executive session, Marine,

[1:14:24] we did,

[1:14:30] we did, okay all right so I will make a motion

[1:14:34] to enter executive session for the purpose of considering a city, what is the language

[1:14:42] of that?

[1:14:44] Assistant director, the appointment of a public official, thank you very much, so that

[1:14:51] is my motion to enter executive session for that purpose.

[1:14:54] Thank you, and we do need a roll call. Yes, all right.

[1:15:00] Okay, Evans, Marks, couple, yes, Baker, Bullock, StreetBug, Hamilton Stanner. All right, and I will include in that council staff and any relevant members of the administration.

[1:24:16] You and Shaker,

[1:24:45] suit a first. Something like. You can join me and Ryan in the same boat.

[1:25:16] So

[1:25:20] we'll exited executive session to committee of the whole and make

[1:25:36] a motion to enter the name

[1:25:38] Katie Kelliger into Resolution 2025-41.

[1:25:45] Second.

[1:25:46] Motion's been made and seconded. Any discussion?

[1:25:49] I'd like to thank Councilmember Evans for working to interview the candidates.

[1:25:55] And we have incredible candidates, so really impressive, as always, the pool of candidates we have in here in liquid.

[1:26:03] All right, on the motion to enter the name, any further discussion?

[1:26:09] All those in favour?

[1:26:11] Aye.

[1:26:12] And I'll move to refer that resolution as amended favorably back to full council.

[1:26:17] Second.

[1:26:18] Motion's been made and seconded.

[1:26:19] Any discussion?

[1:26:21] Hearing none.

[1:26:21] All those in favour?

[1:26:22] Aye.

[1:26:23] And that motion passes.

[1:26:25] We'll take just a, with no further business, without objection, clear the hold as adjourned.

[1:26:29] We'll take just a couple minutes to reset.

[1:26:31] You

Committee of the Whole

Agenda

Transcript