Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-1114 Study Session PACKET CITY OF ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION AGENDA Monday, November 14, 2011 at 5:30 p.m. Siskiyou Room, 51 Winburn Way 5:30 p.m. Study Session 1. Look Ahead Review 2. Does Council have questions about the proposed design for improvements to the existing Police Station? Does Council have questions about the recommendation from the Public Safety Bond Committee? [45 Minutes] 3. Does Council have questions about the proposed recruitment and selection process for City Administrator? [30 Minutes] In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office at(541) 488-6002(TTY phone number 1-800-735- 2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1). COLINCI L 111 EFT] ARE, 11ROADC \S'I Ll VF ON CT1A%M"1 1 9 VISI I 'I111 CI'T'Y 01= ASH LAND'S WJ-Jj $111. AT \V\V\V.ASLILAND.OR.US City of Ashland Council Meeting Look Ahead *****THIS IS A DRAFT AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE*'*** Departments Responsible 1215 1216 12119 12120 112 113 1116 1117 V6 2,7 2120 2121 315 316 3119 3120 412 413 4116 41117 4130 511 v6 Stud sSession: mtSi'ski ou Room2 e TApproval ion re: Recol rate increase request Ann Admin SS Regular Council Meeting 12/6 Vehicle Charging Stations Lee/Adam Electric CONS l of Recology Rate Increase(Ann) Admin PH RES ne service olic Mike PW NEW rom CERT John Fir e NEW 6 cture financing plan for employment development/TIF CD NEW Feasibility Final Plan Bill TSP Update Mike PW NEW e lAcceptance of FY11 CAFR Lee Finance NEW 9 Update on Com Dev Clarity 8 Responsiveness Council Goal CD NEW Bill 10 Ordinance re:Wireless Communications Code Bill CD ORD-2 11 Ordinance updating Housing and Planning commission CD ORD-1 ORD-2 member requirements Bill 12 Request from Councilor Voisin to add a discussion about the Council OTHER Forest Service MOU to a future Study Session v1a o1ibidy Session 1niSIWjdu!Roo`m ;', f! f 1v19P 13 Presentation of FY2013 CIP Mike PW ss 12/201 Regular Council Meetin "' 12/20 14 Resolution regarding Wireless Fees Bill CD CONS 15 Approval of F 201 CIP Mike PW uNFiN 16 Appointment of Budget Committee Members Barbara Finance NEW n AFN Update Lee IT NEW 16 Ordinance updating Housing and Planning commission CD oao-z member requirements Bill ".i/z.. Stu :SessionCancetled,`-mNewkYea•Fs`'.Hollda" ..m.::3 ' '� 113 Regular Council Meetin 113 19 Mayor's State of the City Speech(Mayor) Mayor PRIES 20 Discussion regarding criteria for selection of new City HR PR Administrator Tina 21 Election of Council President Barbara Recorder NEW '1/16 Study!Session Cancelled".MLK�Ji Da grim : - j716;; 1m Regular Council Meetingi um, 22 Council Goals Update Ann Admin I CONS 23 Memorial marker policy(Mike) PW NEW 2n Guidelines for Commission Sponsorship Lee/David Electric L al NEW Page 1 of 2 11/10/2011 Departments Ss cc ss cc ss cc ss cc ss cc ss cc ss cc ss . cc ss cc ss cc ss cc Responsible, 12/5 v 1216 12119 12120 112 113 M6 1117 216 N 2120 1 2121 315 316 3119 SI20 412.. 413 4116 4117. 4170 511? ,Discussion regarding a new model for telecommunications MENNEN MOMMEMMEMEMEMEM Regular Council Meeting =;Approval of TSP(Mike) M Update on Economic Development(Bill) ®Approval of guidelines fe •- Events Study Session(in Siskiyou Room) Regular Council Meeting Study Session(in Sisklyou Room) Regular Council Meeting Study Session(in Sisklyou Room) Study Session(In Siskiyou Room) MWINTAMP 11 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Study Session — Review and Discussion of Design and Funding of the Police Station Meeting Date: November 41201 Primary Staff Contact: Ann Seltzer Department: Administration E-Mail: seltzera @ashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: None Secondary Contact: Terry Holderness Approval: Larry Patterso Estimated Time: 45 minutes Question: Does the Council have questions out the proposed design for improvements to the existing Police Station? Does the Council have questions about the recommendation from the Public Safety Bond Committee? Staff Recommendation: Prior to Council taking action at the meeting tomorrow night, November 15, staff recommends the Council review the proposed architectural design of improvements to the existing police station and review the recommendation of the Public Safety Bond Committee. David Straus of Straus & Siebert will be at the study session to an swer questions about the proposed design and members of the.Public Safety Bond Committee will also be at the study session to answer questions about their recommendation. Background: The Public Safety Bond Committee was asked to evaluate two options developed by Straus and Seibert Architects for expanding or relocating the police station and to evaluate funding options for the expansion or relocation: 1) Improvements to the Grove for a total of 13,000 square feet and an estimated cost of$2.8 million 2) Improvements and expansion of the existing police station for a total of 11,397 square feet and an estimated cost of$2.1 million to be completed in two phases. Phase 1 is improvement plus the addition of 3,000 square feet for$1.45 million and Phase 2 is a second addition of 2,000 square feet for $600,000 to include a training room that can be quickly converted for use as an Emergency Operation Center when the need arises. The committee met four times over the past several weeks. They reviewed both options for a new Police Station as presented by Straus & Seibert Architects: remodel of the Grove and remodel and expansion of the existing Police Station. After reviewing both designs, associated costs and funding options the committee recommends making improvements to the existing station and funding the project using existing resources. Their final report with the recommendation and rational is attached. In September, 2011 Parks and Recreation staff met with current users of the Grove to hear user space- needs should the current programs be moved to a different location. Page 1 of 2 CITY OF -ASHLAND In May, 2011 Council awarded a contract to Straus & Seibert Architects for architectural design services. Two design options for the police station were developed: remodel and expansion of the current station and remodel the Grove. In February, 2011 the Council adopted a goal to complete a feasibility and financing plan regarding renovating the Grove for the Ashland Police station and to evaluate the use of the existing police station for other City office needs. Public Safety Bond Committee Members Darrell Boldt, Chair Clark Custodio, Vice Chair Thomas Walters Jerry Kenefick Roberta Stebbins Laura Daugherty Mary Modesitt George Kramer Council Liaison: Councilor Slattery Related City Policies: Council Goal Council Options: No action is being requested at this time but Council should: 1. Ask questions of staff, committee members, and the architect. 2. Express any concerns about the design and recommendation. Attachments: • Final report and recommendation of the Public Safety Bond Committee • Proposed remodel and expansion of the existing police station Page 2 of 2 �r, CITY OF ASHLAND Public Safety Bond Committee Improvements to Existing Police Station Final Report and Recommendation to the City Council November 14, 2011 Recommendation The Public Safety Bond Committee unanimously agrees there is a valid need to make improvements and expansion to the existing Ashland Police Station and supports the design proposed by Straus & Seibert as Phase I for a total square footage of approximately 9,300 and a total cost of approximately$1.45 million. The committee recommends improvements to and the expansion of the existing police station be funded with a combination of forfeiture funds and other existing resources. While the committee recognizes the value and the importance of an Emergency Operation Center(EOC) and a police training room, it recommends the City delay that portion of the project (referred to as Phase 2) until a future date when funds are available. The committee recommends using the funds identified by the Chief of Police for building purposes, currently totaling approximately $300,000, with all additional funding, approximately $1.15 million, to come from existing city resources. Backeround The committee was asked to evaluate two options for a new police station: 1) Improvements to the Grove for a total of 13,000 square feet and an estimated cost of$2.8 million 2) Improvements and expansion of the existing Police Station for a total of 11,397 square feet and an estimated cost of$2.1 million to be completed in two phases. Phase 1 is improvements plus the addition of 3,000 square feet for$1.45 million and Phase 2 is a second addition of 2,000 square feet for$600,000 to include a training room that can be quickly converted for use as an Emergency Operation Center when the need arises. Rationale • A police station is an essential facility as defined under Federal law and must meet the strictest seismic design standards. Neither the existing station nor the Grove meets the "essential facility" requirements. • The cost to remodel and expand the existing station is the more cost effective option. I • Three funding options were identified: 1) Voter approved GO Bonds 2) Full Faith Credit Financing (requires a dedicated revenue stream for debt service payment) 3) Internal borrowing from existing funds (enterprise funds such as water or electric, sinking fund such as the equipment fund or the general fund). Given the current economic environment, the recent rate increase for electric and water services and recent tax levy for Fire Station No. 2 the committee did not feel voters would approve GO Bonds to finance the Police Station. Given the fees associated with Full Faith Credit Financing, unknown interest rates, the potential negative impact on the City's financial ratings and the requirement of a dedicated revenue stream for debt services, the committee did not feel this was a viable option. While the committee recognizes the burden of internal borrowing is home by all departments, the committee feels this funding mechanism is the most cost effective and has the least impact on citizens. • The committee recognizes the importance of a fully functioning EOC and recommends implementation of Phase 2 as soon as additional funds are identified. 2 Architectural Design Services - Police Department City of Ashland Public Works / Engineering Department Project No. 2010-20 "Project Information Handout" November 14, 2011 I Straus&Seibert Architects, LLP /DLR Group Excellence through Partnerships Lar tifvr Index Introduction Existing Conditions Reports Preliminary Staffing Position List Functional Space Program Site Plan Existing Facility Existing Facility Phase 1 Existing Facility Phase 2 Existing Facility Function Existing Facility Phase 1 Function Existing Facility Phase 2 Function Existing "Grove" Building "Grove" Building Proposal Probable Cost Statements LEED Checklist 'vnuA Arcldtecteral Doipr SRelcar Straus salbert/ou Group 4'RT. NDy,d peace Deperrm st 6T�/a� Project No.M"O Excellence through Partnerships Introduction November 14, 2011 ASHLAND POLICE DEPARTMENT RELOCATION The following information is provided as an overview of the project to date for preliminary review and comment. The Information contained in this report was developed from previous meetings with the Police Department Staff and concemed stakeholders at the lCickoff Meeting. The Draft Report contains Information for additions(Two Phases)and remodel to the Existing Police Facility and addition and remodel for a relocation of the Police Department to the adjacent"Grove" building. Existing Condition Reports have been completed for each facility and indicate to what degree building alterations will be required to provide for seismic considerations. The Comparative Cost Estimate allows for direct comparison of like costs for each facility. Shaw a Seibert/Dui Grout' -- ----- ------ �r , dal Dealer Services ------ (. - 1 MMarul Pinks 0eprties C.�a Project No.201010 Excellence through Partnerships Existing Condition SUMMARY, Police and Grove Buildings General: A visual walk through was conducted for both buildings to assess: 1. General exterior and interior condition 2. Building configurations 3. Fire and Life Safety compliance 4. Structural Condition S. Mechanical and Electrical Condition 6. Seismic(Earthquake) Evaluation 7. No extensive testing or engineering analyses have been conducted Existing Police Department Building: 1. The overall condition of the exterior and Interior of the building Is good with no significant degradation noted except that the existing roofing material should be replaced. 2. The building configuration is four-square at gd per side(6,400sf),one story,with building services In an accessible attic. Expansion of the building can occur into the existing parking lot. Additional parking can be added adjacent to the existing parking lot. 3. The building floor plan design provides for three exits and is generally In compliance with the building code. The building was originally constructed to meet one hour fire rating standards and appears to still be in general compliance. The building does riot have a fire alarm system,only some stand alone smoke detectors. 4. The structural system is a combination of reinforced concrete masonry and wood shear walls. The roof is a wood beam and rafter system with a wood panel diaphragm. The general structural elements exposed to visual observation appear In sound condition. S. The mechanical system,fixtures and equipment,have not been well maintained and are in fair condition,are of inconsistent equipment types and have generally outgrown their 25 year life expectancy. The Electrical system is In satisfactory condition. To meet the requirements for a "Cr(tical Operations Power System"changes in the system will required. Duct work and light fixtures are not seismically braced. 6. For Seismic evaluation a FEMA 154"Rapid Visual Screening'was conducted. A structural "Score" (which indicates the likelihood of collapse)of 2 or lower generally indicates the structure has a greater than 1 in 100 probability of collapse and that a detailed evaluation should be performed. The Visual Screening assessment results allowed a Score of 2.2 and a detailed evaluation Is not a high priority. There are Issues of the building construction that will require assessment and redesign to meet standards. A code mandated seismic upgrade to the existing building would be a function of its proximity and connection to the new addition and to the extent the addition increases loads to the existing structure. The Police Department Building is defined by code as an °essential facility" and Is currently considered an Occupancy IV by virtue of its "grandfathered" use. There is no code requirement to upgrade the existing building because there is no occupancy change. The new addition will be required to meet current codes. The level of seismic Improvement to the existing building will be based on the desires of the owner for an improved seismic structure and the proximity and connection to the new addition. Straus i Salbart/Dix Group Mehkedval Des%n Services. I i NhWW Polka OW.U. . Praleet Nu.202040 :J Excellence through Partnerships The "Grove " 1. The overall condition of the exterior and interior of the building Is good with no significant degradation noted. 2. The building configuration is rectangular and averages 1Wx 80'(8,380 true),one story,with building services in an accessible attic. Expansion of the building can occur to the north and east Into existing exterior storage areas. Additional parking can be added to the north and east and some of the existing parking in place to the west will need. 3. The building floor plan design is consistent with current codes for exiting and general compliance. The building is constructed as a one hour fire rated structure and has a manual fire alarm system. 4. The structural system is a combination of reinforced concrete masonry and wood shear walls. The roof is a conventional framed beam and 1 Jolst rafter system. The building was constructed in 1997. and is generally detailed as expected in a modern seismic design. 5. All systems and components of the mechanical system appear to be functioning normally. The electrical system is satisfactory. To meet the requirements for a "Critical Operations Power System" changes in the electrical system will be required. 6. For Seismic evaluation a FEMA 154 "Rapid Visual Screening"was conducted. A structural "Score" (which Indicates the likelihood of collapse)of 2 or lower generally Indicates the structure has a greater than 1 in 100 probability.of collapse and that a detailed evaluation should be performed. The visual Screening assessment results allowed a Score of 4.9 and a detailed evaluation is not a high priority. There are some connection Issues of the building construction that will require assessment and redesign to meet standards. A Police Department Building is defined by code as an Occupancy Category IV(essential facility). The Grove is an Occupancy Category H. The change to occupancy will require a seismic upgrade of the building to the higher seismic design standard. Additionally,seismic upgrades would also be a function of the proximity and connection of the proposed addition. The new addition will be required to meet current codes. Stmut•SNb"rt/Dla Group ---- - — ;ou,* MtMtKtural Delp Smkn - (�&I ASWWW Poke DMMn M Proleet ea 20" Ashland Police Facility Preliminary Staffing Position List— Now and Immediate Future This departmental area list will be the backbone of the facility space list. Please list existing positions and future positions which are planned for the next (5)years or upon the new facility completion. For instance if the department has Y number of investigators, list those and if one is planned to be added, list that position in the future column. By Department Position Title Current FTE Future FTE 100- Public 200-Administration Police Chief 1 Deputy Police Chief 1 Administrative Sergeant 1 Administrative Assistant 1 300- Investigation Detective Sergeant 1 Detectives 4 Investigations Clerk .5 400- Patrol Patrol Sergeant 4 Patrol Officers 13 2 Traffic Officer 1 Central Area Patrol 1 School Resource Officer 0 1 Community Service Officer 1 500- Booking 600- Evidence Evidence Technician 1 700- Training 800—Staff Support Records Supervisor 1 Records Clerk 3 Volunteer Coordinator .3 900- Building Systems 1000—Site Total Current FTE Positions 34.8 Total with Future Positions 37.8 Ashland Police Department Functional Space Program S SPACE CITY SF NSF Remarks 110 WealherVestibule 1 65 65 120 Public Lobby 1 2DO 200 121 Publc Display Case,In Lobby 1 130 Public Restooms,Supporting M.P.Room 2 50 100 140 Finger Print 1 65 65 150 Janitor 1 30 30 160 Interview 1 120 120 170 Vending,2 Unite in M.P.Room 1 _ 171 Community Rooni EOC/iraining 1 1,200 1,200 172 M.P/rreidna&latdreneb 1 120 120 Subtotal 11900 Departmental Grossing Factor 1.25 $375 �iYl'3 •` ■• EMU 210 Chief ofPolce 1 160 160 211 Deputy Poke Chief k . { 1 12D 120 212 Adminlutalve Sargent 1 120 120 220 Community Outreach ( 1 120 120 221 Volunteer Coonfi-& r(3111e)+3 Volunteers 4 50 200 l FIE at.3 230 Admin.Servkres Menagefta.Files - 1 200 200 240 Records Supervisor Office 1 12D 120 241 Records Clarke ; 3. 50 150 250 ReceptlaniaV Clark 1 50 50 . 260 Reception Counter 1 0 270 Active Records in Clerk Area 1 0 280 Archived Records 1 20D 200 281 Adminlstralve Storage 1 120 120 282 wodaoan,Prim 1 120 120 Subtotal 1,680 Departmental Grossing Factor 1.25 $100 316 Private Entry 320 InvestlgeloNSioegasde 1 50 50 330' Detective Open Ol a Woftwms f 1 4 65 280 340 Detective Sargent,Closed Office [ 1 . ' 100 100 350 Invesilga&vrs Clerk Workstation(.5b) 1 50 50 I A 6, 360 Case Room/CorderenceMtervkiw 1 120 120 370 Active Flies (in looked wotk sWon files) . Sub how 560 Departmental Gkosving Factor 125 715 Straus and Selbert/DLR Group ReVised 7-14-2011 1 Ashland Police Department Functional Space Program 9off 11 410 Weather Ves6bulelStafFEntry 1 65'x- 65 — 420 Charging Case Slerage ma[Wonns 1 60 60 430 Bde6ng Roan 1 300 300 431 BditSbap 1 50 50 433 buster Display,Glass Cabinet 1 440 Patrol Sargents I 4'` 65 260 441 Traffic Olficer ` 1 65 65 442 Central Area Patrol 1 65 65 443 School Resource Off oer _ 1 65 65 450 Petrol Reporting Stations 4 30 120 451 Patrol Officers f 15 . 0 460 Armory/Ammo. 1 100 100 470 Patrol Equipment Storage 1 120 120 Subtotal 1,270 Departmental Grossing Factor 1.25 1,588 510 Vehicular Sally Yard 1 511 Vehicular Salty Pod,two VehWM 2 520 Booking Counter 1 40 40 521 Offender Pmcessmg Area 1 100 100 530 Breathalizer Room,Hard Intemlew 1 65 65 540 Hard hWWow 8 hold 1 65 65 550 ObserVaft Window,from patrol office area i - 560 .Offwder Toast 1 50 50 570 Storage Closet or Cabinet 1 20 20 Subtotal 340 C Departments!Gros"Factor 1.25 425 ��E1(f, �� (YMlP1Y•f.nor �~� P �T�QRI. i �IAli! M�f iS 610 Receiving Bog and Tog/Refrigerators � 65 f' 611 Evidence Lockers,Various sizes 12 1 12 620 Receiving,Processing Work Station 1 65 65 SW Evidence Storage,SWWRefiigerator 2 300 6D0 640 Drying Room 1 20 20 650 Evidence Tedmidan Wakstdon 1 , 50 50 660 Large Evidence Transfer desk(remote) IF 661 Lame EAdence/Propedy Storage(remote) 1 SubtDW 812 Departmental Grossing Factor 1.25 1,015 710 Training Room Storage 1 V 120 120 Subtotal 120 Departmental Grossing Factor 1.25 150 Straus and Seibert/DLR Group Revised 7-14-2011 2 Ashland Police Department Functional Space Program ZtlpDCt!t QTY SF PI 6Ji YE MINN 810 W.Locker Room,12 lockers 1 300 300 820 M.Locker Room,20lockers 1 400 400 830 Break 1 240 240 831 IOtchenette 1 20 20 832 Vending,2 Units 2 10 20 831 Break Palo,Exterior and Privacy Fenced 1 - Subtotal 980 Departments!Grossing Factor 1.25 1,715 ��RSt�!i16 Q7Y SF NSF ORO!lE�FJTPAIdSION 910 Mechanical Room,Ind.Small Shop Area 1 130 130 911 Electrical Room 1 100 100 912 rr 1 60 60 913 Radio Room/Security 1 40 40 914 Emergency Power,Fenced or Enclosed 1 Subtotal 330 Departrnental Grossing Factor 1.25 413 �. � SF SF (57* EXPANS N 1010 Security Fence at Parking 1020 Patrol Parking 1030 Staff Parking Subtotal Departmental Grossing Factor - Subtotal Departmental Grossing Factor 10,015 Gross Building Area US 11,517 Straus and Seibert f DLR Group Revised 7-14-2011 3 SITE PLAN 'o 0 w 11111111H I,Mm i ® aT err s Straus&Seibert/DLR Coup Arddteciml Deslp Services ® Ashland Police Deparunent rr� ...� Project No.2010-20 ■ ■ I41]'•: i' 111 •: v' II i q �"• �} e3y1�• 1• 1 � 41 s �1 1 I t �� 31150 SF ADDITION FOR 9,550 SF .a, lb � * 4 OFF °- S ■(61bj g MAD AIUIORI —.. BRIEF gTOR STOR w �-; - 1YOI✓X 431 a s5o EXISTING BERM OIETIECM BMW T' � gRIEF110 t3l�FlICcf� � rt`�'�R0011 ! y NEWS VAMM gRFAN Moir I LOCKERS LOOM CAS r y r u i K T T VWIOR 1 j PRINT � STORAGE AR e a OV® i a-- aooRO REODROS i 221 1 C �---T-� 100_ COORD CHEIF � t �4 -----1 EATHER E21 fl A0W SO VESTIBULE 811 .[401 1 120 'x, AOW! A886T11NT CIS ROOM gHiQEANT OIIBEAOH ROOK 2 210 1 . 0 212'1 F2261 133 Straus&Seibert/DLR Group Architectuvai Design Services ®. Ashland Police Department Project No.201020 1 ,850 SF ADDITION FOR 11 ,400 SF 91'8 4S WWTMA0MTM � R 500 ,IAk�'-' {. CONAIIROfp 5 TIWIBRG � 1 e10 A PAM' CALNG 4 K: z EOUP ARRORY- BNIEF 470 . 400 BTOR rLt� 1St WClFlffTil: sow . r,da 620( i 42U 8901 0- yp� WOMEHS t_3 .� • 9gppM .I IOBBY 120 >;ROEANI r540i l81S WOMM BM LOp03t9 �g R,O_O�Y ANIM! l IT %Ui STORAGE i I mw i L 2e2 � 10"m Atl*WM ( I(Ras Com o m RED= ' i peen rt Cw R970AD6 - �l AMS10 x891 Z i -- In=i p Mrla gti 110 ° mum At1WMT OIf gel Setmw 011118:ADi ROOM 210 160 L2 22 L 1MI SVens&Seihet/DLR Croup �y Architectural Design Services W Ashland Police Depa mmt WI Project Na 2010.20 EXISTING 6,400 SF FUNCTIONAL LAYOUT Em CORRED PAR"s sm PAMW E4DDAE GETECftYFB }C a(EA pOp18 e MPUFBW49AFF. VART 111m A 11 . � 3 f YOF LOOM COIA08 men asm BOmw 8001@10 IOrCFEl1 AIt81D8 EVDBICE 2F1TiiVffW ROpt '' i GSV2 fWB ` - CSY 810R� MPSUM i LOBBY `WALK � WAIL( CONFE SO ABOBNEB AOMMOTRATAE OOOII cliff ROM ASSIBTAXT Straus&Seibert/DLR Group ? Architectical Design Services Ashland Police Deparbnent Project No.2010.20 PHASE ONE FUNCTIONAL LAYOUT mwwu -04 1 , NEF RAOEft s Min � � oasrwc jlERM �+ Aogn oSi\V[.V1 �!C V UMM E3 WU XKM �/�I�1�p T1C•s•p aW�cI�Y Wax 050 B70 `] CASE It0011 � 950 - JAMtp1 wai Im ARMM JIM L7 I--- ro4 cm I O�IItY r� RED _ r ABNtIsm 8UP8t J Mt] 1 1ABB5. VEMMLE AM AWWMt off ROOY SWAM OvrRMm RM Ci o ] G w . 178 4 W-V . Straus k Seibert/MR Group -04, Atddtecuml Design Service S,®, Ashland Police Depummd '� Project Na 2010.28 1 PHASE TWO FUNCTIONAL LAYOUT Or Ld YYpp w �. . 11 t 9 1• C ILL �'l 610 T I ] Y ] DO MM ] Mail 30T, L23 Y ~r� m ,ILOCMM wcmm ■■■ s-am-1' 1� STORW FM IIIII:ii;7■■■■■■■■■' 11111 ■■■■■■■■■1 i F ] ■■■■■■■■� ■■■■■■■� Y-� - . : WUMM AN KM OWNER• a: AfMT . II' _ go r2121 [M rTY1 II Design Straus&Seibert/DLR Group Architectural `7 , _ Project No. ,1 ®QQ�QQ �b .IHB olm 0101 &M LIA I I I I 4 ' I I I I § I e I K I g a I � pil p IL wwmv gil 1! 14 , ` � a I \ xf I Llilll Llllll I ` \ �` YWW{ o/ \\'` , © O® IN il i Rpm 1 Tol m , r OUM rig m Straus Seibert Architects LLP 1175 East Main Street,Suite 2E Medford, Oregon 97504 PROJECT PROBABLE COST BUDGET SUMMARY for Date: October 10,2011 A ASHLAND POLICE EXISTING FACILITY REMODEL/ADDITION (3,000 +/- SF) ITEM SIZE RATE COST I. Land Cost None 01 0 $p F OTAL7YANDSCOST X501 11. PROBABLE Construction Bu ( 3,000 sf+I--to existing Police Facility) 9,400 $122.40 $1,150,556 (Includes seismic allowance,design contingermy&index for one year)EXISTING FACR rIY o 6,400 sf CONSTRUCTION COSTS $1,150,556 TOTAL PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION BUDGET '$11501 56* Owner CnMoge=&Allmxance Environmental-Lead&Asbestos Abatement By the City of Ashland) 0.00% $0 Design Contingency(Included in the above figure) 0.00% $0 Construction Cont (Change Orders) 10.00% $115,056 TOTAL OWNER CONTINGENCY&ALLOWANCE $119A5�6' TOTAPP.ROB ABLEIGONSTRUCHON[wrtltTCootl--"7&T ce 11111111111 1R 65'6121 111. PROBABLE Development Cost Budget carwrucftn Owner Project Administration 0.00% ?s:.. - $0) Owner Construction Manager 0.00% Owner Clansultants(Contracted by Owner) LEED location 0.00% $0 Commissioning Agent O,pp% $0 Environmental-Lead&Asbestos Abatement 0.00% $0 . . Geotedmical - 0.30% $3,452 Inspections 1.00% $11,506 7ota1 Owner Consultant Fees ti+;? $14Y,95T Archite!inra/Fqgffinggdngj= PreDesign Sludy,Schematic 1.41% $16,200 Design Development 1.58% $18,225 Construction Documents 3.52% $40,500 Bidding(In ADDITION to Contract) 0.44% $5,063 Construction Administration(In ADDITION to Contract) 1.85% $21,262 Basic Architecture/Engineering Fees 8.80% -"1" 5107,7so Other Cn�nlmm Fees Civil B*neering 0.23% $2,600 Fire RoteWon 0.26% $3,000 Communication/Security 0.56% $6,500 Landscaping 0.09% $1,000 Cost Estimating 0.30% Total Other Consultant Fees 1.43% 4M=$1,500j eT TAKA CHT (;TUALN GNN -FEE�S „ , _ 0=3/EIRIG SupplementalSeMcesComingencyl%oro�canswmy&Alb,x ) $115,056 3.52% s�t:C-TOSi] Architect/Consultant Reimbursable(m.d,Phone•rouse pmts er.) 0.17% $2;0001 Fstimaled C.nvnrnmentai Permits P.Fees Plan Review&Building Permits $21,822 Planning site Review $4,542 Systern Development Charges(SDC) $22,712 BOLT Fee (iwnbmm Fire sm,Atmlmmn Fes$7,SOah Calculated $1,265.61 0.001 $886 Total Governmental Permits and Fees TOTAL PROB'A'BLE DEVELOPMENT COST 16% $787,838 dCaram�Wh TOTALWOBABLE-PROJECT BUDGEF011 11q- rr: _ 1lmemmaeJsnPWfi4WPvhabftlmWwftpu wtysWm vmybnWwfir 1pjWjswmsss. $1,453,445 C0pyrW201 t Stran&stlhatl AMNrvn LLP _- . Straus Seibert Architect LLP 1175 East Main Street,Suite 2E Medford,Oregon 97504 PROJECT PROBABLE COST BUDGET SUMMARY for Date: October 10,2011 B ASHLAND POLICE EXISTING FACILITY REMODEL/ADDITION (2,000 +/-SF) ITEM SIZE RATE COST 1. Land Cast Notre 01 0 $0 T.OTANIANDICOST I 11. PROBABLE Construction Budyt (Add 2,000 s +/-to existing Police Facility) 2,000 $260.34 $520,688 (Includes design contingency&index for one year CONSTRUCTION COSTS $520,688 TOTAL PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION BUDGET '$520;60t1' rTvo+r Qntloge=&Allowance Environmental-Lead&Asbestos Abatement(By the City of Ashland) 0.00% $0 Design Contingency(Included in the above figure) 0.00% $0 Construction Conti (Change Orders) 10.00% $52,069 Total Owner Contingency&Allowance $5$�� UTAUPROBA'BLELCONSTRUCnONlwilh1•— `--l&1ABowance N 7211571 Ill. PROBABLE Development Cost Budget x mr ['nxmxrtlxn Budget Owner Project Administration 0.00% Owner Construction Manager 0.00% ,•`"`: ,%0% Own,r.Co08dmuts(Contracted by Owner) LEED Certification 0.00% $0 Commissioning Agent 0.00% $0 EnWmnmeual-Lead&Asbestos Abatement 0.00% $0 Geotechnial - 0.30% - $1,562 S Inspections 1.00% $5,207 Total Owner Consultant Fees -4 %%699 Architnctrw?_ll F_;eina clog Fern PreDesign Study,Schematic 0.88% $4,582 Design Development 1.94% $10,080 Construction Documents - 3.52% $18,328 Bidding(In ADDITION to Com&wo 0.44% $2,291 CorrsWction Administration(in ADDITION to Ccnbao 2.02% $10,539 Basic Architecture/Engineering Fees 8.80% *X$457820: Other Cn .Rant Fwn Civil Engirmmdng 1.04% $5,400 Fire Protection 0.19% $1,000 Communication/Security 0.19% $1,000 Landscaping 0.58% $3,000 Cost Estimating 0.35% $1 W0 Total Other Consultant Fees - 2.34% -irYis:M$1$1-WA �TOTi1L,�ARCF1`ITEGTURAL�ENGINERING,;,•FEES ,_ '-`. ;,;,. : .,,• ,W.":, ..:;. _ 1:11?fi4%�•,;.,.vIQ� 8,020 Supplemental Services Contingency(%otova�c do yaNrxwwmso) $52,069 . 3.52% X51,833 Architect/Consultant Reimbursable(rmet mn pagwe Pon&&Etcd 0.19% $t—W Estimated Gnwarnmental Permits&Fees Plan Review&Building Permits $9,352 Planning site Review $1,947 System Development Charges(SDQ $9,733 BOLT Fee psw ..n Fee f7s0.1Redmum Fee f7,som Calculated $572.761 0.001 1 $380 Total Governmental Permits and Fees $-21,032 TOTAL RMOBA'LtLE jDIWrGP.MEWWO ST 1796 $88;654 dCwmprvdon TOTAL PROBABLE`yPROJECT'BUDGET(1;11,Ilp nma ealau0eu a IydD84B1E pajcsiamZeeltR �[rO x.,mmlld mliy.iytmil�nll&nt pysx pranmas. 661,41.1 eoPyrxphx 2011 seaxr a SeBml AMVWbLIP Straus Seibert Architect LLP 1175 East Main Street,Suite 2E Medford, Oregon 97504 PROJECT PROBABLE COST BUDGET SUMMARY for Date: October 10,2011 C ASHLAND POLICE EXISTING FACILITY REMODEL/ADDITION (5,000 +/- SF) ITEM SIZE RATE COST 1. Land Cost None 1 01 o $0 TOTALiUND?COST 1 IL PROBABLE Constriction Bu (Add 5,000 sf+/-to existing Police Facility) 11,400 $146.60 $1,671,244 pndudes seismic allowance,design contingency&index for one )EXISTING FACILITY o 6,400 sf CONSTRUCTION COSTS $1,671,244 TOTAL PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION BUDGET $1'671;244! Owner Contingency P,Alkagai= Environmental-Lead&Asbestos Abatement(By the City of Ashland) 0.00% $0 Design Contingency(Included in the above figure) 0.00% $0 Construction Contingency(Change Orden) 10.00% $167.124 Total Owner Contingency&Allowance =$167?t44` OTALT ROBABPELGUNSTRUCTIONC TCon WERYWAllowan E � 1x838` 681 111. PROBABLE Development Cost Budget rya cun mouron Budeat Owner Project Administration 0.00% Owner Construction Manager 0.00% Owner C lmdtants(Contracted by Owner) LEED Certification 0.00% $0 Commissioning Agent 0.00% $0 Environmental-Lead&Asbestos Abatement 0.00% $0 Geotechnical 0.30% $5,014 Special Inspeclions 1.00% $16,712 . Total Owner Consultant Fees ..r $21,726� ArrilirarnmaV Fr a Fowe FreDesign Study,schematic 1.24% $20,782 Design Development 1.69% $28,305 Construction Documents 3.52% $58,828 Bidding(In ADDITION to Contract) 0.44% $7,354 Construction Administration(In ADDITION to Contract) 1.90% $31,801 Basic Architecture/Engineering Fees 8.80% St¢7 Other Crms0tant Fees Chdl Engineering _ 0.48% $8,000 Fire Protection 0.24% $1,000 Communication/Security 0.45% $7,500 Landscaping 0.24% $4,000 Cost Estimating 0.31% $5,200 Total Other Consultant Fees 1.72% ;rP SlB;M rTOTAL>/ARCHITECT:I)•!;lUENGINERINGFEES. ® :.- ..:' -° '�!", %7%= S175i� Supplemental Services Contingencyl%ofow cawnsixy&Auwmcy $167,124 3.52% $5,883 Architect(Consultant Reimbursable(Tm1d,m mm maser,Pmlw,&tea 0.18% - , 53,a 01 Plan Review&Building Permits $31,174 Planning site Review $6,489 System Development Charges(SDQ $32,445 BOLT Fee m*n=rea sm,mudmum Fee$7,bo% Caladated $1,838.371 0.001 $1,266 Total Governmental Permits and Fees S7.0,108 TQTAgPRUBABI%EIDEi!BUP,tilENT1COST i7.%� $276,'487 dCelmmflan , TOTALPROSABLE-PROIECTBUDGEU(4I1 liq-' �' 7 This euft b is a raoanaxe Arno*nro,F1amdrS __. $2,114855 CapydgiH 2011 straw&Se"Amhhws UP - — •. Straus Seibert Architect LLP 1175 East Main Street,Suite 2E Medford, Oregon 97504 PROJECT PRORABtE COST BUDGET SUMMARY for Date, October 10,2011 Q ASHLAND POLICE THE"GROVE" REMODEL/ADDITION (13,070+/-SF) ITEM SIZE RATE COST 1. Land Cost None 1 01 0 $0 iTOTAIRIM' DICOST 01 11. PROBABLE Constrnclion Bu (Add 5,000 st+/-to existing Police Facility) 13,070 $151.85 $1,984,741 (Includes seismic allowance,design contingency&Index for one r)EXISTING FACILITY 0 6,400 sf CONSTRUCTION COSTS $1,984,741 TOTAL PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION BUDGET ;? 1$1r984�741 f wncs Cantiogenq P.Allowance Environmental-Lead&Asbestos Abatement(By the City of Ashland) 0.00% $0 Design Contingency(Included in the above figure) 0.00% $0 Construction Contingency(Change Orden) 10.00% $198,474 Total Owner Contingency&Allowance $198,474 OTALIP.ROBABLELOONSTRUETIONfvriBLT R —I&7Allow nce 211831 151 111 PROBABLE Devel"Mernt Coat Budget %ofF , . cmi6 im DIAM Owner Project Administration 0.00% $p Owner Construction Manager 0.00% Owner Consultants(ContraUed by Owner) LEFD Certification 0.00% $0 Commissioning Agent 0.00% $0 Environmental-Lead&Asbestos Abatement 0.00% $0 Geotechnical - 0.30% $5,954 WI Inspections 1,00% $19,84 Total Owner Consultant Fees ffi $yr g;p2 Archlran,.�V F+e�n [tl;Fees FKDesign%udy.Srhnxnatic 1.05% $20,7112 Design Development 1.43% $28,305 Construction Documents 2.96% $58,828 Bidding(In ADDITION to Contract 0.37% $7,354 Construction Administration(in ADDITION to Contract) 1.60% $31,801 Basic Architecturet Engineering Fees 7.41% -,,-ff _47:0701 Other C_s,..s._dtant Fem Civil Engineering 0.40% $8,000 Fire Protection 0,20% $4,000 Communication/Security 0.38% $7,500 Landscaping 0.20% $4,000 Cost Estimating 0.26% $5,200 Total Other Consultant Fees 1.45% �$*', 00 TOTALIPA rrEc-TEC-TOICAUFJENGINERINGI,F, F.. Supplemental Services Contingencymofo�camnvxyaNl. w $198,474 2.%% I�S6T,883] Architect/Consultant Reimbursable(ra.d,m m m-my,uc) 0.15% r�1 Plan Review&Building Permits _ $31,174 Planting site Review $6,489 System Development Charges(5DQ $32,445 BOLT Fee wmim,m fee sm,hkdmun fee s7Aw) Calculated $2,183,221 0.001 $1,266 Total Governmental Permits and Fees $70,108 11111111111TOTAWROBABERDEVErOPMEW0100 14961• $280;562 dcma„mm `-,TOTALrPROBABLE4PR0JEt T6e�haPiOM lEaambLWV(nrpLw"p rpmo*wWm"vayb Mmflmlpvie p"rnetea. .p�,j463r778F? CgWdge 2011 Straus&Shcwy Amhibcb LLP . N N N d 99 ^ u+ o e g j3a$` I I 1 g m 15 r- � u + m LL C f f f f y pp g Y gY U ¢u q yy ilia ' sIn ooAG F a � Bill a; "K -X f X K IK ±t Y N p } } N a s s C C C 12 sot 'erg y w m m W $ & Y � y�' N upalm aaAm _ 3 + f N r N i ► u I AMM CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Study Session — Review and Discussion regarding the City Administrator Recruitment Process Meeting Date: November 14, 2011 Primary Staff Contact: Tina Gray Department: Administration E-Mail: grayt @ashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: None Secondary Contact: Larry Patterson Approval: Larry Patter Estimated Time: 30 minutes Question: Does the Council have questions about the proposed recruitment and selection process for City Administrator? Background: Your City Administrator recruitment is moving forward. Andrea Simms, Waters Consulting Group, is scheduled to conduct a conference call with the City during the week of December 5th to walk the City through approximately 25 finalists she is recommending for consideration for Ashland. These resumes and screening questionnaires will be mailed to the City in advance for review prior to discussing the finalist by phone. The City will work with Andrea to narrow the candidate pool down to a manageable number of candidates to invite to Ashland. Andrea will do more in-depth reference checking of the selected finalist prior to final interviews. The final interview process has been set for Thursday and Friday January 26 & 27 based on the availability of the Mayor and Council, recruiter, and arranging logistics for these interviews. Past recruitments have involved a 2-day process which included the following events: Day 1 Welcome/Kick-off Meeting Tour of the City hosted by City Staff Community Open House and Televised roundtable with candidates Day 2 2-Panel interviews with full Council and selected panelist Staff Recommendation: The Council should make several key decisions to finalize this process. There are also several key considerations you should think about as you prepare to discuss this position with candidates. You should make these decisions and consider these discussion topics in the near future. The key decisions are: 1. How does the Council want to choose a subcommittee of the Council to narrow the candidates down from 25 to the top candidates you wish to invite to Ashland? Page] of 4 CITY OF ASHLAND 2. What are the formal selection criteria for the interview and selection process? 3. How does the Council wish to structure the final interview and selection process? 4. Who should be involved and how? Question 1: How does the Council want to choose a subcommittee of the Council to narrow the candidates down from 25 to the top candidates you wish to bring into Ashland? Bringing candidates to Ashland involves process time and costs. The Council should think of narrowing this field to enough candidates to insure you have sufficient candidates to interview. There is no magic number. It is always likely that 1, 2 or 3 of you finalist may drop out of the process prior to your interview dates. You should think in terms of 5-7 candidates. Also once you have your finalist you want to move diligently through the process because it is possible your top candidates will be offered other positions during this time. To narrow the field you have a few alternatives: 1. The Council could select a subcommittee to screen these applicants. The selection criteria you decide upon should guide this screening as well as your final selections. The Consultants background check will also be valuable in this screening. 2. The Council could meet as a whole to do this screening. This may be subject to an open meeting. 3. The Council could leave the screening up to the consultant based on your selected criteria and backgrounds. This would help maintain candidate confidentiality until the finalists are selected. Question 2: What are the formal selection criteria you wish to use for this position? Here are a few thoughts on criteria for your considerations: 1. Experience. • What type of experience should the candidate have? • Will you only consider candidates who have public sector experience? • If you consider private sector experience what are transferable types of experience and should they have some public sector experience? • What length of experience? • Will you consider Assistant Managers or candidates who are Department Heads and which Department level positions? • Are there certain experience qualifications that are required or preferred? • What size city background is too small or too large if at all? 2. Tenure of Service 3. Education • What level of education is required/preferred and is there an experience equivalency for education? 4. Personality Profile Page 2 of 4 �r, CITY OF -ASH LAN D • Are you going to use a personality profile evaluation or rely primarily on background checks? • What type of personality profile are you seeking? • How will you assess their management style? 5. Other Criteria • There area number of skills you will want to think about how you verbalize and measure those skills as part of your criteria. Such as, communication, listening, thinking, interpersonal, etc.) Question 3: How does the Council wish to structure the final interview and selection process? Question 4: Who should be involved? In making this determination how does the Council want to interview candidates? Do you want to conduct the interviews as a whole or by dividing the Council into smaller groups? How do you or do you involve the Community in this process? Do you want to have a citizen's interview panel? If so do you want to mix the citizens panel with members of the Council as was done before? Do you want a community open house? Is any of this process televised? Staff recommends that the Council consider interviewing the Candidates as a whole to provide the candidate a better opportunity to evaluate Council dynamics and opinions. Remember that the interview process is also a chance for the candidate to evaluate the City and whether they are a good fit as well. The Council should be sensitive to how much exposure is given to this process. It should be enough to provide the community with an understanding of the candidates, your process, and selection but not enough to provide embarrassment to unsuccessful candidates or to create other issues for your selected candidate in getting started in the community. As you prepare for the interview some other considerations you may want to think about are: • What questions are you wanting to ask in the interviews and who will ask them? If you would like I can provide you with an outline for your interview and some suggested questions. • What are your expectations of the next City Administrator? • What is the role, responsibilities and authority of the City Administrator in Ashland? • What are the vision, mission, and goals of the City? • What are the key issues you want the new Administrator to focus on in the next several months? • What is your bottom line for compensation and what can you anticipate that a candidate may request of you? . • You should insure if the candidates has a spouse or significant other that they accompany them to the community for this process. Page 3 of 4 CITY OF ASHLAND This is not an all encompassing list of considerations or questions, but it is intended to prompt discussion and help you prepare for this important decision. Related City Policies: None. Council Options: No action is being requested at this time but Council should: 1. Ask questions of staff. 2. Express any concerns about the selection process and staff recommendation. Attachments: None. Page 4 of 4