HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 4030 Police and Municipal Court Facility and Staffing Plans
---
COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4030
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
BOZEMAN, MONTANA, ADOPTING BY REFERENCE THE 2007
POLICE AND MUNICIPAL COURT NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND
FACILITIES PLAN AND THE IACP ENDORSED STAFFING
METHODOLOGY.
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman is a first class city; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman is required to provide police protection
services within its jurisdiction in accordance with MCA 7-33-4101; and
WHEREAS, it is essential in providing a quality police protection service to
periodically assess the current status of law enforcement resources and future
expected demand for services; and
WHEREAS, the City hired consultants to work with the community and police
professionals to identify current and future staffing and facility needs; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman has examined it's current and future
needs, including identifying additional capital and operational resources needed
to continue to provide quality police protection services to existing and future
users; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Police Chief and the consultants
provided a televised presentation of the contents of the plans to the City
Commission on April 2, 2007; and
WHEREAS, the draft Bozeman Police and Municipal Court Needs
Assessment and Facilities Plan has been available to the public for review since
the date of the presentation; and
191
--......--
WHEREAS, the draft Bozeman Police and Municipal Court Needs
Assessment and Facilities Plan establishes levels of service for police protection,
facility needs and other related services which the City Commission wishes to
adopt as formal standards for the City of Bozeman Police Department and
Municipal Court; and
WHEREAS, the International Association of Chief's of Police (IACP)
endorse and recognize the Police Resource Analysis Findings and Projections
methodology; and
WHEREAS, on June 7, 2007, the Commission indicated their desire to
proceed with adoption of the Police and Municipal Court Needs Assessment and
Facilities Plan and the Staffing Methodology; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing by the City Commission on the adoption of
the Police and Municipal Court Needs Assessment and Facilities Plan and the
Staffing Methodology was duly noticed and held on June 18, 2007; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission considered all matters raised at the
public hearing and concluded that all issues have been adequately addressed in
the document; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Commission of the
City of Bozeman, Montana, that Police and Municipal Court Needs Assessment
and Facilities Plan and the Staffing Methodology, attached hereto as "Exhibit A",
and by this reference made part hereof as if fully set forth herein, be adopted.
192
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Commission of the City of
Bozeman, Montana, at a Regular session thereof held on 18th day of June 2007.
~[Jf'- --/
F A S
Ma
ATTEST:
:BRITTFONlENOT .
City Clerk>- /::./: .
-.............~ ~
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
-;;:::: Grit
Tim 'Cooper
Assistant City Attorney
193
BOZEMAN POLICE AND MUNICIPAL COURT
NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND FACILITIES PLAN
-- ~ -~
.. /'"'....---
/".' ..-.....
. ./ ",,"" .~
~ '" "-
r- V" .-
....... - '........
..... - .--.- ,"'.
.. ...................... ---
- ~'o.c'~ ---- '-
. -. ~ --..-; ,r----....................
r< <:.::.::.~-< '--~<- -
...... - -~ -
FINAL REPORT
~/"_", - - ~
- '. ~--'::.., -
--, ---
March 2007
Printed March 8, 2007
Revised May 2007
Revised June 1, 2007
t.......: f.. .,"
Carter Goble Lee
lr;~I~"j~,
.'",:,'~',,:;>,,_ _,,r, ',,",,' "'" '::"""" '"
IlOlI5IWl POUCE ANl)'1lUfItCIPAi,:_~~",,"
Contents
CHAPTER ONE
Introduction
Introduction .......................................................................................1-1
CHAPTER TWO
Needs Assessment Update
Introduction....................................................................................... 2-1
Service Population .... .................. ......... ............... ........... ......... ......... 2.1
Law Enforcement Statistics............................................................... 2-3
Municipal Court Statistics .................................................................2.9
Updated Projections... ......... ......... ......... .......................... ......... .......2-11
Summary......................................................................................... 2-18
CHAPTER THREE
Space Program
Introduction....................................................................................... 3-1
20-Year Space Program ...................................................................3-1
Summary......................................................................................... 3-19
Project Cost..................................................................................... 3-21
CHAPTER FOUR
Site Options
Introduction....................................................................................... 4-1
Site Development.............................................................................. 4-1
Summary......................................................................................... 4-24
APPENDIX 1 - Personnel Projection Detail
APPENDIX 2 - Space Standards
APPENDIX 3 - Railroad Security
Carter Goble Lee
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
I "'2E \~
K&'
~' '
, ' ,.'
/
:i"':''':'''' ",...,'
<-~
~<\. ,;'"
''''1';,
80~"".POUCE.A,NI)'.MU"IOtf.!~,bQ*;I':";1;':
CHAPTER ONE. INTRODUCTION
Introduction
Carter Goble Lee (CGL) was retained by the City of Bozeman to update the Bozeman Police, Bozeman Prosecutor and
Municipal Court portion of the Gallatin County 20-year Criminal Justice System Space and Facilities Needs Assessment
prepared by CGL in November 2004. Though the City desires to remain co-located with County criminal justice
functions, the tremendous growth in the City and the associated space needs for existing daily operations have
prompted the need to evaluate the Police Department's headquarters, Prosecutor's office and Municipal Court future
space needs and location. Specific tasks included:
· Assessing the current factors impacting future growth of the Bozeman Police Department, Bozeman Prosecutor
and Municipal Court;
· Projecting future staff levels and associated space needs;
· Preparing a space program based on the 20-year projected needs;
· Identifying and evaluating property for potential site development for the Police, Bozeman Prosecutor and
Municipal Court functions with and without other County public safety functions; and
· Assisting with the development of a project budget for the new facility.
CGL would like to acknowledge and thank the following persons whose guidance and feedback helped to create this
document.
Carter Goble Lee
City of Bozeman
Anders Kaufmann, Senior Associate
Chloe Jaco, Senior Associate
Chris Kukulski, City Manager
Judge Karl Seel, Municipal Court
Michelle Westberg, Municipal Clerk of Court
Mark Tymrak, Director of Public Safety
Mark Lachapelle, Investigation Division Deputy Chief
Marty Kent, Patrol Division Deputy Chief
Mark Johnson, Lieutenant
Rich McLane, Lieutenant
1-1
Carter Goble Lee
CHAPTER TWO
NEEDS ASSESSMENT UPDATE
-'J-'
I "^ '", I
,.":;",,,~!7;',:..::, I ;Lt,
'I,,' ,/~', ^ -~l,,~~.,"'\,:ry
t,r,~"
1,: '" / !
,,':w,'<>/
1"( ,"1'(;';
'..\):,,1\..-' y
',~'
.. I'
. . .
" ,\ I (~
;:':i . "
/. .. c . "
,,-... - /!
,- .
'" - .
~".... ' . _ l' > . .
'Si:.'l!U,. . ,e _ " . , .
;BQlEMANPOiJCE 'A"D.IINI.At.ll..ri_.,*,"P:'A.~I"W. .
CHAPTER TWO - NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Introduction
As part of the Gallatin County 20-year Criminal Justice System Space and Facilities Needs Assessment prepared in
November 2004, a department profile was prepared for each physical department location. Each profile represented an
analytical description of the department and was a culmination of the data gathered through surveys and interviews with
key staff. The Consultant's recommended future personnel and space needs for the Municipal Court were also
presented in the profiles.
Another part of the current planning effort to prepare a space program for the Bozeman Police and Municipal Court was
to gather updated staff and workload indicator data since the completion of the 2004 Master Plan and obtain input from
the Police Department and Municipal Court on future needs. The personnel and space needs projections for the Police
Department and Municipal Court were then updated and expanded to 2026.
Service Population
As documented by various sources (i.e., US Census, State of Montana, Gallatin County, and Bozeman Planning
Department), Gallatin County and the City of Bozeman have experienced substantial growth in population the past
eleven years and the trend is expected to continue. Based on the Montana Census and Economic Information Center,
Gallatin County's population increased from 63,831 in 2000 to 78,210 in 2005, an average annual increase of 4.5%, and
the City of Bozeman's population increased from 27,910 in 2000 to 33,535 in 2005, an average annual growth rate of
4%. In addition, Montana State University is located in Bozeman with a current student population over 12,000.
The daily demand for public services in a jurisdiction to include police, fire, and emergency calls varies by day and time
of day due to the actual number of residents, work and shopping commuters, seasonal and tourist population, and
student population. Determining an appropriate service population for Bozeman is especially difficult, as population
projections for the area have historically been "off the mark" and statistically valid information on commuters, seasonal
population, etc., to and from the area is not easy to track. As such, historic and projected service population levels were
prepared for the Bozeman Police Department based on (1) a review of statistical data readily available from Federal and
State resources and (2) local insights on planned housing and infrastructure growth (Le., planned water and wastewater
infrastructure). Note that this analysis does not include any further expansion in the City's limits, which increased from
9.7 square miles in 1990 to 18.4 square miles as of January 2007 (an increase of 86% over the seventeen year period).
Historic and projected service population levels for the Bozeman Police Department are presented in Tables 2-1 and 2-2.
Based on this approach, the Bozeman Police's service population increased from 28,224 in 1996 to 41,602 in 2006, an
average annual growth rate of 4.7%. The trend is projected to continue with a 2026 service population of 110,383
persons (based on growth adopted for the City for determining future water and wastewater faCility needs).
2-1
Carter Goble Lee
CHAPTER TWO - NEEDS ASSESSMENT
.
IlI~MiLi._tCD"UN"'-'";O' """;"";,"""""" """"" "6oca.uctlrNt)fj """","""." ISPM
'~~""""""'":rp....e,M.'"" """" ",QJPA\:""C>URT NEEOSA~~",@"j """": ",etlJ11l """" ." ~
Table 2-1
1996 28,224
1997 29,093 3.1% 2011 53,096 5.5%
-~ 2016 67,765 4.3%
1998 29,960 3.0%
1999 30,723 2.5% 2021 86,488 4.3%
..
2000 31,399 2.2% 2026 110,383 4.3%
2001 32,359 3.1% Source: City of Bozeman Planning Department, State
~"...
2002 33,653 4.0% of Montana, and US Census; November 2006 and
2003 35,235 4.7% updated February 2007.
2004 37,596 6.7%
2005 40,002 6.4%
2006 41,602 4.0%
Average Annual Growth 4.7%
Source: City of Bozeman Planning Department, State
of Montana, and US Census; November 2006 and
updated February 2007.
Figure 2-1
Historic & Pro ected Service Po ulation: Pollee & Water Treatment Facilities
120,000
80,000
I ..... Police Service Pop
__Water TreatmEl.nt Design Pop
100,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
o
~~**&~&~&~&0~~~~~~~~~0~0~~~P~P~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
2-2
Carter Goble Lee
:'i,j(u.:f;a.tlI_~i,,.U
, "_:",.;,,ftDP:.. .~"'" ",,',,'~,:~~~
CHAPTER TWO - NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Law Enforcement Statistics
The Bozeman Police Department provides 24-hour law enforcement services to the citizens of Bozeman. An overview
of Police staff growth and select workload statistics is presented in this section.
Police Staff
Between 2001 and 2006, the service population increased nearly 29% and authorized police staff increased almost 20%.
However, actual hired police staff increased only 9%. Historic authorized and actual staff totals by staff type/function are
presented in Table 2-3. As shown in Figure 2-2, actual staff per 1,000 service population has decreased over the period
nearly 15% from 1.45 to 1.23, while service population has increased nearly 29%. A standard ratio used in law
enforcement planninq is 1.5 staff to 1,000 proiected service population. For comparison, this standard has been
highlighted on Figure 2-2 to demonstrate that both authorized and actual staff levels have been below this industry
standard since 2002.
2-3
Carter Goble Lee
CHAPTER TWO - NEEDS ASSESSMENT
iD........". ._.........U........Yiiii!i~ij~_i~'lI~~ffl<lI~:i\i~~itf~.jAS "*iuw~'.MD'IClllne"S"QN.. :
~'A!YM!fJiii .....~. ...........mily'"'''''... ll_~ I~~i' .... .. ......_. _.' .... .......
if/~:.
Service Population 32,359 33,653 35,235 37,596 40,002 41,602 28_6%
Total Police Staff (Authorized) 48.50 51.50 5200 52.00 56.00 58.00 19.6%
---
Total Police Staff (Actually Hired) 4690 51.20 48.00 47.82 51.00 51.08 8.9%
Police Staff Detail:
Command Staff (Authorized) 500 5.00 5.00 4.00 5.00 5.00 0.0%
. - .n" __._..___"_",.__","
Command Staff (Actually Hired) 5.00 5.00 4.75 4.00 5.00 4.75 -5.0%
Patrol Officers and Detectives (Authorized) 35.00 38.00 38.00 3900 41.00 4300 22_9%
,... Patrol Officers and Detectives (Actually Hiredr
33.40 37.70 34.25 35.32 37.00 38.83 16.3%
-~-- ---.....-...-..-.--.---
Parking-ACO Officers (Authorized) 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 5.00 5.00 25.0%
Parking-A CO Officers (Actually Hired) 4.00 4.00 400 3.50 4.00 325 -188%
_,,_ .... ___n..'.
DARE 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.0%
~.~-'--~_....~'~ ~~-~_...~-".~",. .~".ft., .,~,~..~___.._,_
Civilian Support Staff (Authorized) 3.50 3.50 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 14.3%
Civilian Support Staff (Actually Hired) 3.50 3.50 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.25 -7.1%
Total ';000 Pop 1.$$ 1.48 1.38 1.40 M~ "7.0%
To181AcbJllI' POp 1.52 1.36 1.27 1.27 1.23 .15.3%
Source: Bozeman Police, November 2006 and updated January 2007.
Poiice Staffing Notes:
2001 - 4 swam officers attended Law Enforcement Academy and initial training (6 months each)
2002 - 4 swam officers attended Law Enforcement Academy and initial training (6 months each)
2003 - 3 sworn officers attended Law Enforcement Academy and initial training (6 months each)
3 swam officers on military deployment for 10 months_ 1 parking officer on military deployment for 10 months
2004 - 3 sworn officers attended Law Enforcement Academy and initial training (6 months each)
3 sworn officers on military deployment for 6 months, 1 parking officer on military deployment for 1 year
2005 - 3 swam officers attended Law Enforcement Academy and initial training (6 months each)
1 parking officer on military deployment for 3 months
2006 - 6 sworn officers attended Law Enforcement Academy and initial training (6 months each)
1 officer on military deployment for 4 months
2-4
Carter Goble Lee
'.I'..'i;........"";".............'.:"....';;:.>;i:;:r~.;,.",
:,i -,,;,~r/ ,:,,"; +0:;;
".';.'; :, '
. '~: .,,: "!if.'.
"\ .~; , , >~
,I' , ~ ~
..~!. (",,, ,t'''':,,, , " ';"' :"~~,',,::i:~
~l'>~;"":~:::..,:' "" ,........'../}.'.:,::..:'.,',..'.\~., I:'::{':~I" <
" iT':\/:
BOZE_'POUQEAND.UNICuw..~UlIIElit.__.1~4CtYn.'i~:'
CHAPTER TWO - NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Figure 2-2
Police Staff Rates
1.60
1.50
I ~.... Total. AuihorizedStaffl1 ,ooop;;p--
.. ~.!<:>t.llI_Actual Staff/1,000 Pop
1.40
1,39
1.40
1.38
1.30
1.27
1,27
1,20
1,10
100
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Service Calls
A significant workload for any police department is responding to calls for service. Historic data on service calls and the
call rate per service population and staff are presented in Table 2-4 and Figure 2-3. Rates per staff are separated out by
those responded to by Parking/ACO officers, Command and DARE staff, and those responded to by Patrol and
Detectives (non-administrative). Between 2001 and 2006, total service calls increased over 36% from nearly 29,691 to
40,403 at a rate higher than the area's service population growth of nearly 29%.
2-5
Carter Goble Lee
,I'il
.B......_*ti:..\IRe:.lA)ull*(j~~.Drm~aS'M$ttisMelj1',Nb:plmlJFtEs'p ...
..~..~'JU"".......".IW'r:.. ....9J,j1igl .......~. J;li'PIJt.. . .... .... ..... . LAN
CHAPTER TWO - NEEDS ASSESSMENT
SelVice Population
Command Staff (Actually Hired)
Patrol Officers and Detectives (Actually Hired)
Parking-ACO Officers (Actually Hired)
DARE
Source: Bozeman Police, November 2006 and updated January 2007.
1,200.00
1,100.00
1,000.00
900.00
~..,,.,,,,,,,...,,),......,r"
.-c'
800.00 .. -".~5!l
~~'6i.c."-
700.00
600.00
2001
2002
32,359
5.0
33.4
4.0
1.0
29,691
2,616
470
26,605
911.55
BH.110
1"'3
796.56
33,653
5.0
37.7
4.0
1.0
35,526
2,880
578
32,068
1.055.; :,
720.00
S6.33
850.61
'IJc\CIIJ.
28.6%
-5.0%
16.3%
-18.8%
0.0%
36.1%
42.0%
121.7%
34.0%
$~%
14.7%
131,3%
15.2%
Figure 2.3
Service Call Rates
1,142.77
971 18
945.00
918.03
02
__Total Calls/l000 population
~Calls/Parking-ACO Officers (Actual)
..,*'", Calls/Patrol Officers and Detectives (Actual)
2003
2004
2005
2006
2.6
Carter Goble Lee
'''NAN'MJ.;tCE,,"D',M~.~,'
CHAPTER TWO - NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Crime Rate
The Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Crime Index is compiled nationwide for the US Department of Justice. The Index
includes selected higher level offenses used to gauge fluctuations in the volume and rate of reported crime. The
categories included are the violent crimes of murder, non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated
assault, and the property crimes of burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft. Crime rate data for the past six years
is presented in Table 2-5 and Figure 2-4. The decline in crime rate from 2004 is consistent with national trends.
Table 2.5
Historic Crime Rate
Source: Bozeman Police, November 2006 and updated January 2007,
Figure 2.4
Crime Rates
190.00
12964
170.00
150.00
130 00
121,00
110,00 .-.--..---.-------..---
-+- Crime/1 ,000 pop
___Crime/Patrol Officers and Detectives (Actual)
90,00
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2-7
Carter Goble Lee
,"''''''''''''''
. ,
." ~ . " .... .....
.0.~~...Ii;';;F~~;lWO"" .,i""""":,......iiii..:'i ". "'"'' ....iW.,...,tiK:PACf....,.....ltu:J.N....
,mI~I._ ....... .....,..mML.."IQj"Os.iAlI.. ....lftDW". ........Iom . . '.. .~
CHAPTER TWO - NEEDS ASSESSMENT
National research has found that the following factors have an impact on crime reduction: (1) increased number of law
enforcement staff; (2) innovative policing strategies; and (3) expanded use of incarceration. Thus, addressing any law
enforcement staffing shortages and having a properly sized jail in the area may significantly impact future crime rates.
Arrest
Historic arrest data for 2001 through 2006 is presented in Table 2-6 and Figure 2-5. Over the past six years, arrests
have fluctuated similarly to crime with an overall increase of 15%.
Table 2-6
Historic Arrest
Source: Bozeman Police, November 2006 and updated January 2007.
90.00
85.00
80.00
75.00
70.00
65.00
60.00 -....
55.00
50.00 -
45.00
Figure 2-5
Arrest Rates
.....Arresl/1.000 Pop
__ Arrest / Hired Patrol Officers and Detectives
n__ __._..,....
5.23
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2-8
Carter Goble Lee
.:.......'.,.M..'...,.....'..'.'.'..."'...."..'.",..','.'.',.'
J .,.": :';~ ' "":'" ,.:,
:,~ " ~,; :l'~'\l' .,')
.,;.\:.~.. .'. ,t:: }:i,
, ,
., ,::
.~~,' ",. ,.:;,'
. . " ~'~,i :">;:".' .
BOZEMAN POUOEAND MUNletP41.. cOURrleeJif'.
;' ;"
".....~J~ftE$:f.N:.,
CHAPTER TWO "NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Municipal Court Statistics
The Bozeman Municipal Court handles cases involving violations of City ordinances and misdemeanor cases defined by
State criminal codes; conducts 1st appearance hearings for misdemeanor cases only; addresses tax collection under
$5,000 and fees due to the City of Bozeman under $5,000; refers all felonies and civil cases to Justice Court; and serves
as a court of record. An overview of the Municipal Court's staff growth and workload statistics are presented in this
section.
Court Filings
Court filings are an indicator of demand for judicial services, as they are the most consistently collected and most
comparable quantitative measure of staff activity. Historic filings data for 2001 through 2006 is presented in Table 2-7
and Figure 2-6. Over the past six years, filings have fluctuated with an overall increase of nearly 12%. Interestingly,
filings per population and staff decreased from 2002 to 2005 with an increase in 2006.
Service Population
Municipal Court Staff
Filings
Filings t '1,000 Pop
II
Source: Bozeman Municipal Court: January 2007.
2-9
Carter Goble Lee
CHAPTER TWO - NEEDS ASSESSMENT
....:PIUQIDO;I.m.~COURTNE.S'''SSEl...r:,A14D'AClutlE$.PlM
3,000,00
2,500.00
2,000,00
2,032.00
1 ,500.00
r..- .--.-.---
...... Filings 11 ,000 Pop
_ Filings 1 Court Staff
1,000.00
Parking Citations
Court clerks process approximately 4,000 parking citations per year, requiring an amount of time equal to approximately
1/3 full time equivalent position a year.
2.10
Carter Goble Lee
'.'
" , t~ ,', '"
~ ,7 0~
' .' ",' ';"
- _ J _
I 1>.\~ "
, ~ I .:., > ~
~ "-:-: t,.' ..
BO~"AN'pQLICE4N"'~NI~IPAL.CO."\, "'<",' ".; . .....:'t;MI"ctl.IJ.t...:,
CHAPTER TWO _. NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Updated Projections
Overview of Existing Space
Police Headauarters: The Bozeman Police Headquarters is co-located with the Gallatin County Sheriffs Office, local
courts, Detention Center, and 9-1-1 at the law & Justice Center at 615 South 16th Avenue in Bozeman. The co-location
of criminal justice functions is the greatest advantage to the site. However, as documented in the 2004 Master Plan, the
existing facility is extremely cramped and not well designed for criminal justice functions. The Police and Sheriff share
space and/or staff for evidence storage, law enforcement records, locker rooms, interview rooms, and break
area/kitchen. Space deficiencies for the Bozeman Police Department include:
lack of private offices for investigatory functions.
No conferencing areas.
Too small work stations.
Inadequate evidence storage.
Inadequate property storage.
Inadequate general storage area.
Inadequate crime lab with vehicle processing bay/garage.
Inadequate interview rooms.
No holding cells.
No patrol mustering/ roll call area.
No fitness area.
No training area.
No staff services area.
The Police Headquarters needs space for a full service police facility less dispatch and 9-1-1. In addition to the facility
spaces listed, the existing site lacks adequate parking for staff and the public and a designated, secure area for an
impound lot. (Note: Police substations strategically located throughout the service area should not be used to deduct
from the headquarters' space needs.)
The Police Department is organized into three divisions: Administrative/Support Services, Patrol, and Investigation.
Figure 2-7 presents a current organizational chart for the Bozeman Police.
2-11
Carter Goble Lee
CHAPTER TWO - NEEDS ASSESSMENT
,:
." ' " " ,,' ' , ,,' ' ~ , ,': :: "" , ' , "" " "" : : "" ' , ' ' I " , : " , ' : " , ": : "" .-
..:a.......A.......Mh. ..... . .IN.~!lijtIAII( "'0 .rR'..I(If...f&l....S,.Cl!DCNU.Nf'.ID:F .'. ."IL.iI'rIIPLAN
~m ... . ~~MN..... . ..........11 NQlIL..R,. lmIiP ~M""'lIi. .. "~'" ..... ..... Aft ............ '. ........... ....
Figure 2.7
Police Organization Chart (as of January 2007)
Director of Public
Safety - Pollee
(Chief)
Patrol Division
Supervisor
(Deputy Chief)
Lieutenants
(2)
Investigation
Division Supervisor
(Deputy Chief)
Patrol
Sergeants
2-day shift
Patrol
Sergeants
2-mid shift
Patrol
Sergeants
2.night
shift
Detective
Sergeant
~~j
---]
-~-~
Patrol
Officers
(9)
---
[- ,--
Patrol
Officers
(9)
-------
-I____________.,
General Detectives (5)
Drug Detectives (2)
School Resource Officers (2)
dmlnistratlve Secretaries (2)
Evidence Technician (1)
Dare Officer (1)
nimal Control (1.25)
Parking Officers (3.75)
Civilian assistant (1)
2-12
Carter Goble Lee
, ,. ,
..,'.!,....! ..... ..' "MIMel! ...........
.,;M1I~~I~~~.
, CHAPTER TWO - NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Municioal Court: The Bozeman Municipal Court is co-located with the Bozeman Police Department and Gallatin County
criminal justice functions at the Law & Justice Center at 615 South 16th Avenue in Bozeman. As previously noted, the
co-location of City and County criminal justice functions is the greatest advantage to the site. However, the existing
facility is extremely cramped and not well designed for criminal justice functions.
Space deficiencies for the Bozeman Municipal Court include:
Courtroom too small for operation (overflow to lobby).
No expansion area for another court.
No conferencing areas.
No mediation area.
No secure corridor for Judge to office and courtroom.
Jury Room not within security corridor.
No holding cells.
The Municipal Court needs space for two courtrooms and jury deliberation rooms; two judicial suites including judge's
chambers; and office and work areas for judicial support staff. Although this is a municipal court, the occasional need for
secure prisoner holding will be met by holding cells in police department spaces.
In addition to the facility spaces listed, the existing site lacks adequate parking for staff and the public and a designated,
secure area for judicial staff. An impound lot is desired but, based on land availability and cost, may need to be located
remotely.
Figure 2-8 presents a current organizational chart for the Bozeman Municipal Court.
Figure 2-8
Municipal Court Organization Chart
JUDGE
Clerk of Court
Clerk
Clerk
Clerk
Restitution
Officer
2-13
Carter Goble Lee
CHAPTER TWO - NEEDS ASSESSMENT
.
," 1'1 , .' ::::;'; '::":'" "" ..,:. .:I'~ ,.~"" ::":;'":",,:,' \:: "" .
.~"I!!Ia'i"~N"toUkJE' ...... . R:ld ..... ....:.. ",' '.'1, r:u1.tli!EDS'j ....... "'i9SM1NiAU" t=.CIU ..... .. ....., '.' ..N...... ·
~., ........ .. AN.,NJ~C~ '. '"'. . ......" .l."Q..ADeS LA
Personnel Needs
Future personnel projections provide an objective basis for estimating the probable magnitude of building space needs in
future years. These estimates in turn provide a planning basis for examining alternative development strategies and
building concepts and thus determining preliminary estimates of construction and project costs.
Police Department: In November 2006 (and updated March 2007), the Bozeman Police Department conducted a
comprehensive staffing analysis with assistance from Tim Freesmeyer (Etico Solutions, Inc.), a patrol staffing analysis
expert. In accordance with procedures endorsed by the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), the results
from the recent analysis were used to project staffing levels as part of the needs assessment update.
Analvsis: The analysis is based on types of calls, response times, number of calls, and the average time a patrol officer
is committed to calls in the specified service area. Additionally, historical information from payroll databases and four
years of actual schedules were examined to determine the average number of vacation, sick leave, military leave,
training, etc. hours to calculate a shift relief factor to provide patrol officers for the level of service required (i.e.: the
number of officers required to staff shifts 24 hours daily). The IACP methodology is best used to predict staffing needs to
a maximum of four (4) years in the future and after that point averages are used for future predictions and needs. The
methodology is most accurate when the analysis is done annually on the previous year's data and then is used to
forecast staffing needs for budget purposes based upon the most recent needs assessment.
With assistance from the patrol staffing analysis expert, historical data from Bozeman from 2002 to 2006 was reviewed
and forecasting formulas were used to determine patrol staffing needs to 2027. Then, staff ratios were applied to all
non-patrol positions based on local and other comparable agency experience (detectives, SRO/DARE officers,
command staff, animal control, parking, and support staff). The results of this analysis are summarized in Table 2-8 and
Figure 2-9. This analysis results in a projection of 83 positions for 2011 and nearly 132 positions for 2026.
Results: An adequately staffed and properly deployed police department is able to:
· Respond to the emergency and non-emergency needs of citizens in a timely manner.
· Conduct prevention and other proactive patrol tasks effectively. This includes crime prevention, community
oriented policing, developing partnerships, community crime education and problem area response.
· Conduct follow-up investigations in a timely manner.
· Conduct all other patrol tasks effectively, including proactive traffic enforcement and high visibility patrols.
· Allows officers to meet administrative requirements satisfactorily, including mandatory report writing,
investigative follow-up, training and training documentation, court, and personal needs, and ensure the
safety of the public and police officers.
2-14
Carter Goble Lee
"1"
. '. - ~
) 1;-"- i '
. i. -',
.,.: 'f{
c '
, .-
. I . ~
, '
. ... " -= M~ ~ 0.&'1} '" .' ,
, ~::.~, , ~. :'h ,. "',,,~i,:\>;;.n>;(~;j~:'+~':'::,i,...,~ :::1':':::!:-\:, , ,::<::.,: ':" ':~> ,:;':'.. ' :
.8. D.... eM..... .... 'APOUCi 'O:MUN'tP. :~OU::1timft.::I~""'-,*iiD'fA.n,mES'DI".u_.
....... H.. ...~..,AN.. ...... .IC.a"....Rl:. ~@~PmIIDl.~""...."...I~n.......r~
CHAPTER TWO - NEEDS ASSESSMENT
71.0 115,2%
17,8 121.9%
SRO/DARE Officers 7,1 136.7%
~~--
Command Staff 10,9 118.4%
- -~
Animal Control 3,9 215.2%
Parking 7,9 110.4%
Support Staff 12,9 222.8%
131.5 126.7%
Figure 2-9
Police Personnel Needs
155,0
135.0
95.0
131.5
115,0
1_IAc:~naIYSiS I
75.0
58.
55.0
2006
2011
2016
2021
2026
The IACP endorsed methodology is best used to predict staffing needs to a maximum of four (4) years in the future. After
that point averages are used for future predictions and needs. Using this methodology, the projected staffing level for
2011 is forecast to be 83.4 FTE's. The IACP methodology is most accurate when the analysis is done annually on the
previous year's data and then is used to forecast staffing needs for budget purposes. As with any projection model, the
formulas and aooroach should be reviewed and adiusted annual Iv to reflect local changes in crime, population,
development growth, etc.
2-15
Carter Goble Lee
CHAPTER TWO - NEEDS ASSESSMENT
,..,
, "
6.'.'" ,~...... .'u"\~'tb; ".I,lND'tJO'm:Co"R'!Ni!j!ftI~Atit_ENfi~fiClliI1~$"tAN
'~""""""'"'" ....,...".........,NtQI.. ,. .. ..,. """'" ...,R1l"J' .... ......9..,.. ". .... . ". ~..Q ""...,""", . ,./iO,....P..,
Municioal Court: Historic staff data from the 2004 Master Plan was updated and the projections expanded to the year
2026 for the Bozeman Municipal Court. Using historic authorized staff numbers and data gathered through department
interviews, the following models used in the 2004 Master Plan were updated to project staff for space planning purposes:
· Model 1 Historical Number Change - estimates future growth based on historical average growth in the number
of authorized positions per year from 2001 to 2006.
· Model 2 Linear Regression. calculates the slope and intercept from historical personnel data from 2001 to
2006, and then uses this data to forecast the future number of positions along a regression line.
· Model 3 Existing Staff to Projected Service Population - applies the current or 2006 ratio of authorized staff to
2006 service population and then applies this ratio to future service population estimates.
· Model 4 Ratio of Staff to Projected Court Filings - applies the existing, high, average, and low historic ratio of
authorized staff to court filings from 2001 to 2006 to projected court filings for the projection years.
The Consultant reviewed and compared the outcome of each model to historic staff growth and insights revealed in the
personal interviews. A summary of the Consultant's recommended future personnel needs is presented in Table 2-9.
Based on a review of the models, Model 4 Existing Ratio of Staff to Court Filings to Projected Court Filings was selected
as a planning target. The CGL Update results in a total authorized staffing need of 7 positions by 2011 and nearly 13
positions by 2026. Detail on historic and projected ratios is provided in Appendix 1.
1) Historical Number Change (+0.2 Per Year) 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0
2) Linear Regression 7.4 8.7 10.0 11.3
3) Existing Staff to Projected Service Population 7.7 9.8 12.5 15.9
4) Ratio Staff to Court Filings
a. Existing (2006) " 2,032.00 7.3 8.7 10.4 12.5
._-~_.,- "...'- ...----.---" --- ..~"~' n., ~,.
b. High (2001 to 2006) " 2,652.20 5.6 6.7 8.0 9.6
..~.._-~"..",..~
c. Average (2001 to 2006) " 2,038.13 7.3 8.7 10.4 12.5
~"~~,',~---
d. Low (2001 to 2006) " 1,578.50 9.4 11.2 13.4 16.1
Recommended Staff
Model 4a 7.3 8.7 10.4 12.5
Source: CGL, February 2007.
2-16
Carter Goble Lee
.' "'1/11'
,~.^ !
~, 1\ I I"
- ,
. I
.~ , ~
,..," ~, ',,. ",.;. >" ~ _:" ':.:~1.;\" ,,: ;.j.
ie~NlMI PoJJCEAttD14IlNIClPAt..C(jJtr':,,," ^'
i., l.'" .'":',-::" ~!.;.: ;:.'"
CHAPTER TWO - NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Space Needs
The number of personnel is the major factor that drives space needs. The next major factor is the amount of space
allocated to each staff position. In a master space plan, the size of individual offices/work stations is not as important as
the total allocation of space for each staff position. For example, an office may be 100 square feet, but the total space to
support that office requires corridors, conference rooms, public counters, etc.
Projections of future space needs are based on both present conditions and other factors including:
· Department's function.
· Present space deficiencies.
· Projected personnel growth derived from the alternative projection models.
· Planned or anticipated functional or operational changes.
· Space standards based on generally accepted planning and design guidelines and/or the Consultant's
experience in similar projects.
The Consultant projected space needs by function in five year intervals to 2026 by updating the methodology presented
in the 2004 Master Plan based on the detailed space program presented in the following chapter. The total department
gross square footage (DGSF) is the sum of the various personnel, support, public, storage, equipment, and circulation
spaces within the confines of that department; the space required for interior walls is also included.
Parking space needs were also computed based on (1) the local parking code of 1 space per 250 square feet of floor
area (DGSF used) for a typical office environment; (2) the ratio based on the Consultant's analysis in the 2004 Master
Plan of 1 parking space per 169 square feet; and (3) the recommended ratio based on balancing the code requirements
for a typical office building and the more staff-intensive and courthouse visitors of the Police Department and Municipal
Court. The ratio of one car per 200 DGSF was selected as representative of most high-capacity situations.
A summary of the projected DGSF and parking space needs for the Bozeman Police and Municipal Court is presented in
Table 2-10. The 2026 projection is in italics, as this is the planning target for the detailed space program in the following
chapter.
2-17
Carter Goble Lee
.':.::'"". . .,
. ...... ..}II';"W' .".' ',', ... ..... ' .... .
B"AN,~Ce;.D MIlfNICIPA1..COUR1"N.O$AS$...N".PI~ACIU*PL.A.
CHAPTER TWO - NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Existing DGSF 4,311
FTE Personnel Projection 58.0 83.4 100.0 116.7 131.5
--.-
DGSF Space Projection 14,790 21,267 25,500 29,759 35,870
-..--....---.....-...
Parking Spaces 1 :250 DGSF 59 85 102 119 144
-.......-.-..-.
Parking Spaces 1 :169 DGSF 88 126 151 176 213
Parking Spaces 1 :200 DGSF 74 107 128 149 180
. "''''Wfl.I::'Powt
Existing DGSF 2,368
-....----.... .-..-- -.......
FTE Personnel Projection 6.0 7.3 8.7 10.4 12.5
DGSF Space Projection 5,070 6,164 7,357 8,807 10,500
... .------ ... -- ...
Parking Spaces 1 :250 DGSF 20 25 29 35 42
.-.-......-.-..--..
Parking Spaces 1 :169 DGSF 30 36 44 52 62
..._ _.._.m..
Parking Spaces 1 :200 DGSF 25 31 37 44 53
Source: CGL, December 2006 and updated May 2007.
Note: The space projections are expressed as DGSF and grossing factors must be added to determine total building
size or BGSF. Common public and circulation spaces and building grossing factors are included in the detailed space
program in the following chapter.
Summary
Overall, the City of Bozeman will be experiencing significant growth over the next twenty years. The City's Police
Department and Municipal Court will require a major increase in space and parking requirements to address past deficits
and to meet the demands of a growing community.
2-18
Carter Goble Lee
, ~. :. ~.~ .;', """;;,,,,;
. ",: "<',"'", " ",',
,i;i:,;~; i' '!;,;j:):,i;y::i}t" ,",
CHAPTER THREE
SPACE PROGRAM
I~(~&
~.~
~\. ..! ;
1",
,,''''.
CHAPTER THREE - SPACE PROGRAM
':D~i~~~R .......
.. .,,,Gf....,~;n;v\,.~
Introduction
An architectural space program defines the square footage assigned to each space within a building and recommends
how the spaces should be organized in relation to one another. Accordingly, the spaces recommended are organized in
tables by groupings/clusters that reflect the organizational and operational needs of each department. The tables and
descriptions that follow provide recommended guidelines for the project architect to use in designing the Bozeman Police
Department facility.
The following space tables identify: the type of space by title and number; a space standard by the number of square
feet (SF) per unit, person, or space; the number of persons or units in the space; and the quantity of identical spaces
required. These figures are multiplied together to determine the net square feet (NSF) required for each space element.
A departmental grossing factor expressed as a percentage of the net area is added to the NSF to account for internal
(intra-department) circulation and wall thickness. This total is expressed as the subtotal departmental gross square feet.
Each table includes a comment column that provides additional information about specific space needs and/ or space
conditions to serve as a guide for the architect.
Following each space component table, a space adjacency diagram is provided to show the general configuration and
inter-relationship between area spaces. The diagram is not intended as an architectural layout but for use by the
Architect as a general guide in building design.
Program area totals are then summarized in a summary table. Mechanical/electrical spaces and a building grossing
factor are added to the total area of all departments to provide for major mechanical equipment areas, connecting
circulation spaces between components, stairwells and elevators, and exterior wall thickness. This final total is the
building gross square footage (BGSF).
20- Year Space Program
The program has been divided into five sections/functions: Administration, Patrol, Investigations, Support Services, and
Municipal Courts. For each functional area, a general description of the function is provided followed by a detailed 20-
year space program and space adjacency diagram.
3-1
Carter Goble Lee
CHAPTER THREE - SPACE PROGRAM
.~i,.'" .
,~
1.000 Administration
Under the direction of the Director of Public Safety, the Bozeman Police Department provides law enforcement services
within the City of Bozeman. A large public lobby serves as the entry area for the entire facility. Within the Police
Administration component, the Reception and Waiting area serves as a public information desk, controls all movement
into the Police spaces, and includes a raised counter with ballistic glazing and a duress alarm. Visitors are escorted
from the lobby to Police areas with secure controlled access. The Executive and Administration area includes office
spaces for the Chief, Assistant Chief, and Administrative Secretary. An interview room is located near the reception
area; a large conference room is located near the Chiefs office. Shared general spaces include a workl copy room,
records storage, supply storage, and staff toilets. Shared staff spaces such as holding cells, records, training and fitness
rooms, lockers, and kitchen are included.
A satellite office suite for the City of Bozeman Prosecutor is located in this facility. Because appropriate confidentiality
and security are essential, the suite must be clearly separated from other functions and provide physical, visual and
audio privacy for work, files and conversations. The Prosecutor's office includes a clerical/waiting area, private offices for
the Prosecutor and Assistant City Prosecutors, paralegals' area, work room and file storage rooms.
1101 Entry Vestibule
1,102 Public Lobby
1,103 Police Department Lobby
----.--....--..--...--....-
1,104 _~e_~~E!~?nist & Fron!gesk
1,105 Public Terminals
1.106 Witness Waiting
1,107 Public Toilet
1,108 Janitor's Closet
1,109 Interview Room
1201 Public Safety Director/Chief of ~~!i~e
1,202 Assistant Chief
1,203 Administrative Secretary
1 ,204 COf!lpu_t~r Room
1,205 Storage
1,206 Conference Room
100
500
100 2-pairs double doors
500 Serves all facility components, seating for 10-15; metal
_________ detec~!/~_ecurity screening eql!!Pf!l~~!.._
180 Access~d from Public Lobby; sealing for 6-8; carrels for report
H __ pr_~p~r~l!.,?_n _ ___
1 120 Counter & secure workst~_t!?!l_; ballistic glass glazing
___ _._3 120 Semi-private workstation w/ computer terminal
120 Separate from public waiting, seating for 6; access to interview
rooms
_____ 1 ____ 320 Male & female, ADA-compliant
1 35
60
1,555
544
2,099
180
120
40
120
160
35
60
216
160
100
60
60
450
216 Private office, conference seating for 6; privat~_ toile!.cl?set
160 Private office, guest seating for 3-4, closet
300
....-.-- .----
60 Printer, et~:___
60 Secure
450 Administration & media; conference seatin for 25
1,246
436
1682
3.2
Carter Goble Lee
>! .....'.u . ., ....',:,' .,:,';':""':1.... ...', ,:, ,.... .'
11..~...... :_.,.......'_;~.,~
....
. ......... .....,.......
~ " . ,
CHAPTER THREE-SPACE PROGRAM
," ,~,\. ,. ,
1.301 Law Enforcement Classroom 15 80 .1.200 Simulator, classroom instruction, foldin~all for division
.-... .---
1.302 Exercise Room 800 1 800 Exercise equipmen.t, mats, defensive ta~tics training
--
1.303 St~rage 150 1 300 Separate rS'oms for civil defense gear, suppli~s
1.304 Male Locker Room 6.5 125 813 Full-height lockers wi 2-comp~!!..~~!IJ~each
1.305 Female Locker Room 65 40 260 Full-height locker~_~1 2-compartments each
1.306 Male Showers & Toilets 400 1 400 8 showers, 6 toilets, 2 urtnals, 6 sinks
1.307 Female Showers & Toilets 260 260 3 showers, 4 toilets, 4 sinks
4,033
1,008
5,041
1.401 Staff Break Room 450 450 Counter wi sink, refrigerator, microwave, vending, accommodate
30 -- -.... .--
1.402 Staff Toilets 120 4 480 Separate male & female, ADA-compliant; locate as required by
code and for best efficienc.L
1403 Mail Room 120 120 Receive & sort mail, individual staff mailboxes
---..-...,, ..-.............
1404 Work Room 200 200 Work table, copi~~, fax, printers, supplies, forms .
1.405 Conference Room 450 Shared by 1.206
1406 Server Room 150 1 150 Secure
1407 }~mpor~ry Holding Cell 50 2 100
1.408 Detainee Toilet 50 1 50
1409 Clertcal/Records Staff 64 1 704 Workstations
.---.. - .-..-.
1410 Records Room 400 1 400 .~ecure; high-density storage system
1411 Stora e 60 60 Secure, safe for received a ments
2,714
950
3,664
1.501 Reception/Waiting. 120 1 120 Accessedf~omPublic Lobby
1.502 Bozeman Prosecutor 216 1 216 Senior Prosecutor's private office
1.503 Assistant City ~~9secutor 200 3 600 Private office
._...,,~_..._~.,.
1.504 Support St~ff - Paralegal 80 3 240 Paralegal area w.!~onfidentia.lityseparation
1.505 S_upportStaff - Receptioni~t 64 1 64 Serves as recepti~~ist
1.506 ~torage/Work_Area 200 1 200 Files, copier,fax, shredder, work tab~~.!supplies
1.507 Stora ~: Long Term 200 1 200 Case file record storage
1.508 Conference Room 144 144 Enciosed
1,784
624
2,408
Source: Carter Goble Associates, December 2006; Rev. March 2007.
3-3
Carter Goble Lee
: ','. ".'.
BO_ANiPOUCG'~Q;MUNICIPM.'_JW,;'
CHAPTER THREE -. SPACE PROGRAM
Figure 3.1
Administration Space Adjacency
1.202
Assistant
Chief
160 SF
1,
Admin.
Secretry.
100 SF
1.
Admin.
Secretry.
100 SF
1.203
Admin,
Secretry ,
100 SF
1206
Conference Room
450 SF
1201
Public Safety Dirl
Chief of Police
200 SF
To 1.100
To 1.200
1104
Recepl
F r. Desk
120 SF
1107
Public Toilet
160 SF
JElII CI
35Sf
1102
Lobby
600 SF
To 1.500
To 5.000
1107
Public Toilet
160SF
1101
Entry
Vestibule
100 SF
5' 10' 15' 20'
.
....
.
Access
3-4
Carter Goble Lee
..'.'..........'...,.,..,.
, ~
CHAPTER THREE - SPACE PROGRAM
:,~ys.n~~tlJll,INb,:iit.ti'JD:~."ci1Rtl~$A..I:tI!$M~' .". '/'AtmJoESiN
~"'rp""'v...,..".,',....,. ..,. JQ .fT~ ,..........."..,...,... .",Fl~H","~ ..,~.l NlD . ,''''''', . . ...,~. ..,
Figure 3.1 (continued)
Administration Space Adjacency
Access Circulation
-----------
1,302
Exercise Room
800 SF
1.304
f-- Male Locker Room
813 SF
1.303
Storage
150SF
1,303
Storage
150 SF
1306
Male ShowerlToilets
400 SF
-,...
I
1.~07
Female Shower!
Toil.
260 SF
1301
Law Enforcement
- n n ___n n --- n - - classroom------------
1.200 SF
11305
Female Locker Room
260 SF
5' 10' 15' 20'
o
3.5
Carter Goble Lee
, " ,
.,,, ,
-, ":,'"
,..'."" f,,_..,y,...,.. ......'PLAN......,...
i i, " , ~:'~' , ',: :"
,i.. , , ' , " ' ",' ~ : ;~: , ~
"" ,,^,;' ,~"~ ,~"", '" '" ,. ',;1:,:, ,." ',.', , ""', , "',,' ,,"e ::,:" ",:,,' ~: '" , ' ' "
CHAPTERTHREE SPACE PROGRAM
Figure 3.1 (continued)
Administration Space Adjacency
Locate 2 - 1.402 as reqUIred
by code andlor staff
distribution
Access Circulation
(~~----~\(------~\
: 1 402 : : 1.402 :
: Staff :: Staff :
: Toilet : : Toilet :
L~:o_s~~J :.._~:o_s~~J
-----
__I --
1.402 1402
Staff _ _ Staff
Toilet Toilet
120 SF 120 SF
1.401
Staff Break Room
450 SF
1.404
Work Room
200 SF
1.406
Server
Room
150SF
1.410
Records Room
400 SF
1.409
Clerical/Records Staff
704 SF
5' 10' 15' 20'
,
3-6
Carter Goble Lee
CHAPTER THREE - SPACE PROGRAM
ft.. ....'...';cikic.. ,.....\~~;,\~I!!;.'*','
~lMlt\~~I..
.........,..........,......
"
. .
',.',',....', ',". ',..... '., . '.'"'''''' . :..:., '.
'IR.mMI'~II~"sif!.~lm '. cc'. '.,; '.. .'N
!.'eft.,... T' 1URY,. .J~ ...ljiowmImJ'I~:~I'.e$pl.A ,.
Figure 3-1 (continued)
Administration Space Adjacency
1.507
Storage -
Long-Term
1.506 200 SF
Storage/
Work Area
200 SF 1.504
Support 1503
Staff- Assistant
Paralegal City
240 SF Prosecutor
1.502 200 SF
Bozeman
Prosecutor
216 SF
1.503 1.503
Assistant Assistant
1.508 City City
Conference Prosecutor Prosecutor
Room 200 SF 200 SF
144 SF
1.501
Reception/
Waiting
120 SF
i
From 1.102
5' 10' 15' 20'
,
3-7
Carter Goble Lee
. )':'~I';<' ;'~ '1' ,'Vi::,::,' ;" i.:l:~:'"
""', ~,
JJ II.
, ;
I
,\0 ,f "
.-r.: ~~"~;\ ,1; \t " Ii 1\
, ,1....". I.'''"
"OZE"AN'Pf)LlCEANDMUMtOIP~,Q(W.fd'_Jf. ',. . .:.'I.tII.P~"'
CHAPTER THREE - SPACE PROGRAM
2.000 Patrol
As stated in the Bozeman Police Department's FY06 Annual Report, "the primary responsibilities of a Patrol officer are
answering calls for service from the public, providing law enforcement education, and enforcing criminal and traffic laws.
The officers augment their abilities to proactively react to providing public safety by using a variety of tools, techniques
and assignments to provide a wide range of law enforcement services. Police Kg, motorcycle patrol, bicycle patrol, Civil
Defense Unit member (riot control) and Special Response Team member (tactical team) are just some of the different
assignments a patrol officer may take on to address different concerns throughout the City."
The Patrol area includes semi-private offices for lieutenants and sergeants, a large workstation area for other officers,
and a work area for support staff. Support spaces include CDU and SRT staging and equipment areas, weapons
armory, bike patrol storage, a temporary canine holding area, and file and other storage rooms.
2.101 Supervisor (Deputy Chief or Captain) 160
2.102 Patrol Lieutenant 140
2.103 Patrol Sergean!___ 75
2.104 Officer's Workstation 64
2.105 Officer's Storage Cabinet
2.106 Support Staff
2.107 Interview Room
2.108 Computer Room
21 O~ gpen Case File Storage
2.110 CDU & SRT Staging Area
2.111 CDU & SR_"!:_~torag~_
2.112 General Storage
2.113 Armory
2114 Bik~_Patrol Storage
2.115 Canine Holding
2.116 Canine Supplies
2.117 Patrol Vehicle Parkin
3
64
60
60
120
500
300
150
150
300
40
30
300
1
1
2
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3-8
1
3
6
160 Private office
420 Private office; includes projecteggrowth _
900 6 - semi-private offices (12 staf~; includes projected growth _____
512 Workstation pod for 4 officers, acoustic barriers for private phone
conversations; includes projected rowth
_ _____~ Approx. 2' x 2' cabinet stacked 3 high; includes projected growth
256 Workstations - clerical, transcriptions
240
_ ______~_~~_!~~, etc.
120
500
300
150
150
300
80
30
2,250 Covered arkin ; area calculated at 25%
6,608
2,313
8,921
1,338
2
CDU & SRT storage adjacent, requires exterior access
May be sub-divided
Various equipment & supplies___________
Weapons, a_I!I!f1_~~!~g~l_gherTIical munitions; vau~t construction
Storage fo~ bi~~~~~ot~r_~;~ized for additional units
Protected kennels for short-term hOlding
Carter Goble Lee
'II;
,........'.....'.......'.................
.'
,
".', III ':' ". .,5;::,':",,: .."..:...:;,.. "., . '.' '. "', ", ':
..:MI'.acc:wa"_;"....r\.... ',. ,.D'AtIlIfI.~
CHAPTER THREE - SPACE PROGRAM
Figure 3-2
Patrol Space Adjacency
2.117
Patrol Vehicle Parking
1
Exterior Access
1
2.110
CDU & SRT
Staging Area
500 SF
2.114
Bike Patrol Storage
300 SF
2.105
2.111 Officer's
CDU & SRT Storage
Storage Cabinet
300 SF 180 SF 2.104 2.104
Officer's Officer's 2.103 2.103 2.103
2.113 Station Station Patrol Patrol Patrol
258 SF 258 SF Sergeant Sergeant Sergeant
Armory
150 SF 150 SF 150 SF 150 SF
2.109 2.103
Open C. 2.106 Patrol
File Stor. Support Staff Sergeant
256 SF
120 SF 150 SF
2.102
Patrol
Lieutenant
140 SF
2.102
Patrol
Lieutenant
140 SF
5' 10' 15' 20'
.
3-9
Carter Goble Lee
CHAPTER THREE - SPACE PROGRAM
3.000 Investigations
The Police Department's FY06 Annual Report states, "...the primary responsibility of the Investigation Division is to
investigate felony criminal matters and to assist other agencies on criminal investigations. Other general duties include,
but are not limited to: background checks on individuals hired by the Bozeman Police Department and City of Bozeman,
internal investigations, public talks and community education in various field ranging from forgery or robbery seminars,
identity theft issues and dangerous drug educational classes." The Investigation Division includes Detectives, Drug Task
Force, School Resource Officers, Investigative Support Services, Evidence Technicians, and the Sexual and Violent
Offender Registration Program.
The Investigations area includes office and support space for detectives and some evidence processing. Detective
spaces include private offices for the Lieutenant, Drug Task Force and Detective Sergeants; interview rooms with an
adjacent observation room; detectives, SRO and administrative support workstations; offender registration; and a
work/copy room. Evidence processing areas include a large processing/meeting room that can also function as an
incident command center, and a vehicle processing bay that can accommodate a 1-ton vehicle.
3.1_01 Supervisar (Deputy Chief ar__Captai.'L
3.102 Lieutenant
2!g~_ prug Task Farce Office
3.1 04 Detective_.?~~gean!.9!fice
3.105 Detective's Workstation
3.106 SRO Warkstation
3.107 Administrative Support
3.108 Prace.ssing/Meeting Raam
3.109 Offender ~e.9_istr~!i~~_
3.110 General Storage
3.111 Camputer Rao~___m
3.112 CSI Supplies/Sul'\leillan~~_~~!Ement
3.113 InterviewRaam
3.114 Observatian Raam
3.115 Witness Toilet
3.116 Canfidential Recards
.....----- ..-...-.-
3.117 WarkArea
160
140
100
120
80
48
....---.--
64
500
100
100
60
200
60
100
50
150
100
3.118 Vehicle Pracessing
1,400
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
2
10
3
4
1
-....-.--- .--.--..-..
1
1
1
1
5
1
2
1
1
160 Includes praj~~t~_~9r~wth
. 1~Q!,~iV~_t~ affice; includes prajected future grawth
400 Private affice; includes projected future grawth
240 Includes proje~~ed fut~!~9~()wth
____~QQ.~!9.~_warkstations; includes projected growth
288 Large 2-person workstatians; includes projected future~~Q__
256 Warkstations; includesprojected staff growth
_~OO _ Case reviews, APS/CPS meetings, incident cammand center
100 Sexual and violent offender!egistratian program
100 Secure
60 Printer, e!c.,_.__.___
200 Bady wires,.~i1rn.~~r;'.crime scene kits, night vision equip., etc.
300
....._n____._n__. .......___....__.
100 Lacate to. abserve interview raams
100 ADA campliant __ u
150 Separate, secure~t~r.!l_9~.f~~ sex & vialent affender recards
100 Videa sury~illance dubbing
One large bay far Han vehicle. 2 car bays; exterior access for
1,400 flat bed taw truck; may serve as department vehicle light
service/maintenance
3-10
Carter Goble Lee
,.............",................
. ',""
. ,
M_,iil_:jrie('\dij~" r.ti'i(r ........... -.... ..' "".' "'I$--.t ........'.... ...~' '. .'. ....1,IA\
, ;1w4im.8!I~_iANQ,~IIf'~':..<It"T,".I..,9'fI, :'.ID,,~eumaS"p'N
CHAPTER THREE - SPACE PROGRAM
3.109 3. 01
Offender Superv./
Registr. Deputy
100 SF Chief
i 140 SF
5' 10' 15' 20' Access
.
3.116
Confidential
Records
150 SF
3.117
Work -
Area
100 SF
3.110
General
Storage
100 SF
3.108
Processingl
Meeting Room
500 SF
Figure 3-3
Investigations Space Adjacency
Exterior
Staff Access
1
Vehicle Access
1
3.112
CSI Suppliesl
Surveillance Equip.
200 SF
3.103
Drug
Task F.
100 SF
3.118
Vehicle Processing
1,400 SF
, ,
, ,
, ,
! 3.106 i
SRq Workst*tion
! 288SF !
, ,
, ,
, ,
3.107
Administrative
Support
25 SF
3.105
Detective's Workstation
800 SF
3.104
Detective
5g\.
120 SF
3-11
Carter Goble Lee
CHAPTER THREE - SPACE PROGRAM
4.000 Support Services
Support Services includes both Administrative and Evidence components. Administrative functions include Community
Oriented Policing, Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE), Animal Control, Parking Enforcement, Accident
Investigations, Victim Advocate and Child/Forensic waiting and interview rooms, and uniform storage and other support
areas. Evidence spaces include a receiving counter and Evidence Technician workstations, after-hours evidence
lockers, long-term and special evidence storage areas, evidence processing lab, and found property storage and vehicle
impound lot.
Table 3-4
Support Services Space Program
3-12
Carter Goble Lee
."""N/'
,f.
,...,'.:."..... ...t.:
,. , ,'"
1'/"'::.
"",:'i' ..:,:"
K?U'.",,'.':,.i.',. ',.;"...;'...\".".""....,"',.'UI':.:,,'''ir,
,:,' '. .' ."BIIMI':M "':fi ...',
< ";',, H';itztMftM11;~ ;:10" ~ " :',
CHAPTER THREE - SPACE PROGRAM
4.101 Lieutenant Supervisor 140 1 140 Private office
n.. ._.._
4.102 Animai Control Officer 64 3 192 Workstation; includes projected growth
4.103 Animal Control Storage 60 1 60 Traps, cages, etc,
4.104 Traffic/Parking Officer 64 5 320 Workstation, accident investigations to replace current parking
staff; includes projected f).r~wth
4105 Gra~lsfT~aining Office~ 100 2 200 Private office
4.106 DARE Officer 100 1 100 Private office
4.107 DARE Suppli_es 50 1 50 May__be include_d w/ DARE office
4,108 ~ictim Adv(jcate Waiting 100 1 100
4.109 Victim Advocate Office 100 2 200 Private office, access to interview rooms
4.110 Child/Forensic Interview Room 80 1 80 Comfortable w/child-appropriate furnishings
4,111 Observation Room 100 1 100
..-- .-..---
4.112 ~~cords M_anage_~ent Staff_ 64 Space allOC?ted at 1_400
_u_____.
4.113 Records Room 240 Space allClcated at 1.400_
4,114 Computer ~oom 60 60 Printer, et~~_______
4.115 Uniform Stora e 200 200 Boots, uniforms, etc.
1,802
631
2,433
_~_ _Receiving Cou_~ter 120
-...--.
4.202 Evidence Lockers 60
.-"--
4203 Prop~rty Offic~r 100
..--.-
4.204 Evidence Technician 80
4,205 Long-Term _Evide~ce_Storage _ 700
4206 Special Evidence Storage 100
4207 Processing Lab 150
4,208 Bicycle/F(jund Pr~erty Storage 400
4.209 Impound Lot 6,000
2
120
60
100
160
700
300
150
400
6,000
1,990
697
2,687
5,119
768
Counter w/ technician work area
After-hours evidence deposit; 2-sided
Private office
Large workstations. includes projected growth; adjacent to
evidence storage
Secure, higb-density storage shelf system__
As required for biohazards, combustibles, weapons, money,
peri~hable ll1~terials requiringrefrigeration, etc.
Near recei~i~g and storag~-, fume hoods/eq~_ipment as reg'~_:
Cold storage ___ _____
Exterior area, not included in s ace totals; fenced & gated
3
Source: Carter Goble Associates, December 2006; Rev May 2007,
3.13
Carter Goble Lee
.....ft..~UA......Mljd..iA.IdD.ai:I'"NR.."..'
"~'I" "^,~.r:~~Ji~,,,,,,,jI!'VJ!'~,.,\'~~
CHAPTER THREE - SPACE PROGRAM
Figure 3-4
Support Services Space Adjacency
To Investigations
--
4.206
Special Evidence Storage
300 SF
4.205 4.207 I 4.?04 Bi
Long-Term Evidence Processing EVi~ence F
Storage Lab Tee nician Pr
700 SF 150 SF 16bSF S
4.203 4.201 ~
ProperlY_I- _Receiving I ( 4.2021
Officer Counter Evict. L.
100 SF 120 SF 60 SF
-
ternal
.. 1
ccess 1 ' .'1 ' 1
: 4. 02 : 4.115
Animal Control Off. I ( '.IVJ ,I Uniform
Animal C
! 192 SF ! Storage Storage
60!;F 200 SF
~ 4.105 4.105
4.111 4.110 "'b'.... Grants! Grants! 4.106
03:""" I- DARE
Observ. ~ ~hild F m-o ~ Trainer IT rainer
,,' ....
'" Officer
Room InterR 100 SF 100 SF '4To7"
100 SF 80 SF .............. 100SF DARE
~vp.
14.109 4.1091 4.108 J2!E..
Victim Victim Victim Ad 4.10 4.104
Advocate Advocate Waiting Lt. Supervisor Traffic Officers
100 SF 100 SF 100 SF 140 SF 320 SF
In
A
5' 10' 15' 20'
,
i
Access
3-14
---,
4.209
Impound Lot
6.000 SF
(May be remote)
4.208
cycle!
ound
operty
tcrage
400 SF
:-=J Exterior
Access
Carter Goble Lee
CHAPTER THREE ~ SPACE PROGRAM
,8. M_",.'jMift~'MD,lilljfitlP. .... Rltt4!EDS '$$ESSMMMD'FAi'IIWlISPL* '.'
...~m""'.. ~,............... J!f'I...... .,..............~e... ...... .... .......... A..... ....,. ....... ..... .,.", .,. 'YJ~U...............,.... (N
..-......'.'.'.............
. " ,
5.000 Municipal Courts
The Municipal Court is one of the Courts of Limited Jurisdiction, which also includes Justice Courts and City Courts, in
the State of Montana. "Although the jurisdiction of these courts differs slightly, collectively they address cases involving
misdemeanor offenses, civil cases for amounts up to $7,000, small claims valued up to $3,000, landlord/tenant disputes,
local ordinances, forcible entry and detainer, protection orders, certain issues involving juveniles, and other matlers".1
Most Montanans seeking justice will encounter the justice system in one of the Courts of Limited Jurisdiction.
The Municipal Court component is accessed from the main public lobby, which includes some waiting area for visitors to
the Court. Two identical courtrooms are provided, each with a 7-person jury box and seating for up to 50 spectators.
Each courtroom has its own assigned jury deliberation room with adjoining toilets and beverage station. Two judicial
suites for judges and staff as well as other support spaces are included.
1 Source: Montana's Official State Website, hllp:llcourts,ml.gov/lcourt
3-15
Carter Goble Lee
" ':1':":' ,~,i/}: ::,. .;i. " .
;::-:;>:;:'?~:'.;k>0kC. :\;
~!
'()$1AtfPOUCEAt4DMUN,'etPAL"COuat~:i:': .
I '-~ ~"h' . ' 1
.'<'/>,,"
,~>::<'~,' l ' ~
CHAPTER THREE -- SPACE PROGRAM
:'<,..,'" ....I-U.D~'....N'.'...
i' "':'1:' ,,<r::
" ' ,''''''~ ,.. Iv. ., ."" ".'d "'. . ,.. ,.':, ' : ", ,'''''' ,,,'
5.101 Courtroom
1,600
100
80
60
40
160
120
120
- --_.,_.,-~~.
35
300
50
1
0,5
0.5
0.5
1
1,600 Bench, witness stand, clerk's workstation/desk, jury box for 7,
counsel tables, spectator seating for 50
100
80 Access from vestibule
60
- -
In courtroom well, area included in courtroom_.___
160
60
60
18
300
..--,..--
100
2,538
634
3,172
6,344
Private toilet, closet
Adjacent to J_I!.~~e'~.offic:e
Shared by two suites
Shared b two suites
500
300
320
120
120
100
120
400
50
100
120
2,250
788
3,038
10583
1,587
Contiguous with or adjacent to 1.102 Public Lobby; if separate,
increase to 1000 SF
Open counter w/adjacent wor_~~t~ti~n_~for 3 staff
Modular workstations; includes projected future staff growth
Locate near Judges
5.102
5.103
5.104
5.105
5.106
5.107
5.108
5.109
5.110
5.111
Soundlock Vestibule
Interview Room
EquipmentlStora_ge_~_o_C?1l1
Bailiff Station
~.9.~~room lJ\iaiting
Public Toilets - Male
Public Toilets - Female
Janitor's Closet
Jury Deliberation Room
Ju Toilets
Copier, fl!~, supplies
High-densit~~_h~vlng~ystem recommended for growth
.Coun.tEl!_ w/sink, refrigerator, microwave; seating for 3-4
5.201 Judge's Office 240
5.202 Judge's Chamber/Meeting ~~~_ __!20
5.203 Bailiff Workstation 40
5.204 Files/Storage/Copy 60
5.205 Bevera e Alcove 30
5.301 Waiting Area
500
100
64
120
120
100
120
400
50
100
120
5.302
5.303
5.304
5.305
5.306
5.307
5308
5.309
5.310
5.311
~El_ception Counter
Staff Workstation
Judicial Assistant's Office
Restitution Officer
Work Room
-.---..,----,.
Records Room - Active Records
Records Room. Inactive Records
Staff Toilet
Staff Break Room
General Stora e
3-16
Carter Goble Lee
CHAPTER THREE - SPACE PROGRAM
8HiW!!U.~1I1i~."j~e'..'..... . (1MbM. ...... ..j.~Ot'lfNel!~s_oNleNf';AUDfi..' ..... ....... ,. ,E$.'P. 1A...'. .....N
..~"""'Ff"M.... .. .. ..... OIP~ Y..~ ... .. . ..~1iIiWl.. .. .., . S~ ....... !!Pl....~0IU'P.... .
Figure 3-5
Municipal Courts Space Adjacency
SECURE JUDICIAL CORRIDOR
----------
~---~------------------~-----~
:..~llr..., :-f1Tr',! :
I Jury t., I Jury 'I "..-----... I
: Toilet : + Toilet : :: 5,1,~5 : :
1,2~~) ~"211.~) ,-_~~I~_)
...--- ----,
,
5101 5.1110 51110 5.101
Courtrooms Jury Jury Courtrooms
1.600 SF Deliberation Deliberation 1,600 SF
Room Room
300 SF 300 SF
5.103
Interv.
Room
80 SF
5,102 5106
Soundlk Courtroom
Vestibule Wailing
100 SF 160 SF
.....
.
Access
- . -
"'--:"'~s:M~~1
: Equlpl-+-.-
I Slo"'9. I
~_@~E_) _________________~----------~I
5.108 (----5~fo6----'1 (-5102'-': (-5~fo:r:
Public Toil. : Courtroom :: Soundlk-U-Interv, :
Female : Waiting :: Vestibule :: Room :
120SF :_1--L6Q~~_--) :_~~o_SL) l_~O_SL)
.....
.
Access
-
-.--.--.-
PUBLIC CIRCULATION
5' 10' 1$' 20'
.
3-17
Carter Goble Lee
B()ZlSf4ANftOIJCe ANI):MUN1~P~~;.;,'~ ...
CHAPTER THREE - SPACE PROGRAM
Figure 3-5 (continued)
Municipal Courts Space Adjacency
5.201
Judge's
Office
_ 240 SF
'--------':r--5~i02--~~
:: Judge's CI :
5.201 :: Meeting R :
, I
Judge's ! 1,_Jl~lL_~'
Office : 1 (5101',
240 SF I I "".ff :
-.- -.--- W~sta, I
: ~~c..s!./
-------_...'
------
SECURE JUDICIAL CORRIDOR
5' 10' 15' 20'
o
3-18
Carter Goble Lee
....,.'.."........'............'..
~ , :
.. .
..IOt.AN.WQI'MI):MUlllpA\....QOURTNIEEQSAS$ES8M......,.'AOILlTtSS..PJ,.AN
CHAPTER THREE - SPACE PROGRAM
Figure 3-5 (continued)
Municipal Courts Space Adjacency
To 5.200
Judicial Suites
5304
Judicial
Ass!' Off,
120 SF
5305
Restitution
Officer
120 SF
To 5.100
Courtroom
T05.100
Courtroom
S' 10' 15' 20'
,
5,308
Records Room. Inactive
400 SF
I
I
,
, 5,302!
Rec~ption CQunter
i 300 SF i
5303
Staff Workstation
320 SF
5301
Wailing Area
500 SF
,--------- .._-_._--~,
I ,
I ,
I ,
: 1102 :
: Administration :
+---+-- ,
, Public Lobby :
, 500 SF ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, I
'-*._-~-------------~
.....
.
Public Access
3.19
Carter Goble Lee
CHAPTER THREE - SPACE PROGRAM
Summary
A summary of the space program totals for the Bozeman Police Headquarters and Municipal Court facility is presented in
Table 3-6, with an overall space adjacency provided in Figure 3-6. The minimal total building size recommended per the
20-year space program is 53,819 BGSF.
8,374
8,374
Source: Carter Goble Associates, December 2006; Rev. May 2007
3-20
Carter Goble Lee
.' ,..,," ,:
. ;
~,' -,." ;
", .If
'.._....~_......\_-IlH~,.. ..~~
:.~~<~:,;, """"""..,~'Yiffl"'At~IJQ!:"~', ,1li9 ftJliji,'.P ...: '. ',..y\' ..
CHAPTER THREE - SPACE PROGRAM
Figure 3-6
Overall Space Adjacency
Exterior Staff and Vehicle Access
l
l
2.000
PATROL DIVISION
1.400
SHARED GENERAL SPACE
1300
TRAINING AND FITNESS
3.000
INVESTIGATIONS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I - 4000
I SUPPORT
1.200
EXECUTIVE
AND
ADMINISTRATION
I I I
I I I
1000
RECEPTION
AND
WAITING -
5000
.. MUNICIPAL COURT
.
Public Entry
3-21
Carter Goble Lee
,~:
'IIPZEMAN..P()LlCr;:~NDIUNlOlPAto:~it.:"~;;,.. .
CHAPTER THREE - SPACE PROGRAM
,. :\
Project Cost
An estimated project cost was computed for a new police headquarters based on the 20-year space program. Project
cost does account for average construction and owner costs (architectural/engineering fees, project management fees,
furniture/fixtures/equipment fees, normal site development, and contingencies). Project cost does not account for land
acquisition, site development or utility construction beyond normal circumstances, or financing cost.
To determine a project cost in May 2007 dollars, a construction cost per square foot appropriate for the Bozeman area
was multiplied by the DGSF calculated for each police function and to shared building spaces. For parking, a
construction cost per square foot was multiplied by the area required for 233 surface parking spaces. Site preparation
was calculated at 5% and other project costs were computed at 30% of construction. The results are presented in Table
3-7. A project cost of approximately $12.5 million is estimated for May 2007. Note: Cost units will need to be adjusted to
reflect mid-point construction costs.
Table 3.7
Bozeman Police Department
Preliminary Construction and Project Cost Estimates
Janua 2007 Values
1.000 ADMINISTRATION
2.000 PATROL DIVISION
3.000 INVESTIGATIONS
4.000 SUPPORT SERVICES
5.000 MUNICIPAL COURT
14,894 $ 155 $
8,921 $ 180 $
7,282 $ 180 $
5,119 $ 175 $
10,583 $ 185 $
46,799 $ 172.63 $
7,020 $ 110 $
75,725 $ 4 $
Site Preparation @ 5% of Construction $
53,819 $ 178.59 $
Subtotal All Areas
Building Gross @ 15%
233 Parking Spaces
2,308,613
1,605,744
1,310,742
895,860
1,957,809
8,078,768
772,182
302,900
457,693
9,611,543
Other Project Costs' @ 30% of Construction $
TOTAL PROJECT COST (excludes inflation to future construction mid-point and land purchase) $
Source: Carter Goble Associates, December 2006 . Revised May 2007
NOTE: All costs are projected to May 2007 with no escalation to mid-point construction,
'Includes AlE Design and Program Management Fees; Testing; Furniture, Fixtures and Equipment (FF&E); Construction and Design
Contingency.
3-22
Carter Goble Lee
'i~ ;': ','r:",~ ::'l:\t . . ,.
, ' "f
CHAPTER FOUR
SITE OPTIONS
aOZlMA"NtlQtsMll.ltlMu,
CHAPTER FOUR - SITE OPTIONS
Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to summarize the evaluation of potential sites for the 20-year space needs of the
Bozeman Police Department and to assist with the development of a project budget for the new facility.
Site Development
Background
In 2006, the Consultant assisted Gallatin County in evaluating possible sites for a new Detention Center and other
components of the Gallatin County/City of Bozeman criminal justice system. The results of that effort were summarized
in a report presented to the County Board of Commissioners and the Capital Improvements Projects (CIP) Committee.2
During the earlier study, the Consultant evaluated five publicly-owned properties held by the County, the City of
Bozeman or other public entity for their suitability to accommodate a justice complex that included the detention center,
courts and law enforcement agencies. The emphasis of this current study is on appropriate sites for only the Bozeman
Police Department and Municipal Court. If suitable acreage were available, a detention center, other law enforcement
and County court functions could be co-located on such a site. As proposed previously, a full justice complex would be
the ideal; however, the lack of available suitable sites and the pressing needs of the Police Department suggest a
strategy for the development of facilities on separate sites.
Evaluation Process
The Consultant reviewed a list of City-owned property to identify potential sites for development of a Police Headquarters
and, potentially, a consolidated City and County law and justice complex. The following site sizes are considered
necessary to meet the 20-year and future growth needs:
· 5 acres for a new Bozeman Police Headquarters, and
· 30 - 35 acres for a consolidated City and County law and justice center to house Police, Sheriff, Courts, and
the Detention Center.
A list of City-owned properties near and over 5 acres in size is provided in Table 4-1. Properties over 30 acres in size
are shaded. As shown in the table, all the properties except the Mandeville Farm site are identified as parks. At 86
acres, the Mandeville property is a potential site for development of a multi-facility justice complex.
Adjacent to the State-owned Mandeville site is property owned by the City of Bozeman; this site was designated "Site B
- City Site" in the 2006 report. Some concerns about this site are limited access to major access roads, presence of a
major utility right-of-way across the site, and the adjacency to the Montana Rail Link railroad line on the north boundary
of the site. To address security issues and potential hazards caused by either natural or terrorist acts to the railroad, the
2 Gallatin County Detention Center Alternative Sites Evaluation. July 28, 2006, prepared by Carter Goble Lee.
4-1
Carter Goble Lee
'."
. j'~,
...'.,...... .........,..,' "'..........,......,.....,......,...,.,.,.,.'..,..........,.",...,....,....,'",.,...,...,..,.,'",..,'..':.::,'.....,';,.'..:..,:.
',' '""""""".:'1
CHAPTER FOUR -- SITE OPTIONS
;MlNtIPAt..fi"....
Consultant was requested to gather information about this matter. A summary of findings is included as Appendix 3 of
this report.
The Consultant also evaluated two additional sites:
1. A designated 5-acre portion of the existing L & J site, located on the east side of the property. The primary
access to this parcel would be from South 16th Avenue, with a secondary access from the north side of the
existing detention center. (Although the total area of this site is only approximately 18 acres, it would be
suitable for one or two of the three components of a proposed consolidated justice complex; however, as stated
in the 2006 report, the L & J site is considered too small and, for additional reasons, is not recommended for
long-term use for a full justice complex).
2. The current City Shops site is located in the northeast section of the City at the intersection of East Tamarack
Street and North Rouse Avenue. Containing approximately 4.19 acres, the site currently houses city vehicle
maintenance operations, streets department, sign department, water/sewer departments, forestry department
and waste oil collection site. The possibility of moving these operations to a larger site is presently under
consideration, so the property may become available for other use.
4.2
Carter Goble Lee
CHAPTER FOUR - SITE OPTIONS
Baxter Meadows
Bogert Park
Bronk8I1 Park
Bur1<ePark
Cattail Creek, Phase 1, Park B
Christy Fields
East Graf Park
Gardner Park
Harvest Creek, Phase 3 & 4, Park 3
Kirk Park
Langhor Park
,__ Lindley Park
McLeod Park
New HlIite VIeW
Oak Springs Subdivision
R ionalPark
Rose Park
Sundance Trail
Tuckerman
__ Valley u.~_~tfark
Valley West
Valle .West Annex
West Babcock
Westlake Park
MandevilleFann
Source: City of Bozeman, November 2006.
West Babcock & Fowler Lane
5th & Tamarack
1225
10.4
6.8
39:1
4O.Q
Park 5.8
Park 6.5
Park 15.4
Park 8.4
Park 4.9
Park 13.3
Park 8.9
Park 12.6
Park 18.0
-Park 47.0
Park 6.8
Park 100.0
18.5
18.0
10.0
8.6
4.8
39:1
Park 5.3
Park 5.9
taf'lcf 86.0
Cattail & Catron
Black & Mason
North of Graf Street
Gardner Park Drive
Oak and Annie
20th & Beall
Tracy & Mason
Main & Buttonwood
Sundance Drive
Renova Lane
;...:~i:i~.,
Woodland & Oak
Sundance Drive
Goldenstein
Cascade & Durston
Babcock & Clifden/Hanley
Site Scoring
Concurrently, a listing of variables to be used in identifying candidate sites for the Bozeman police facility was developed.
Four basic groupings of these variables were established: 1) Location/Access; 2) Physical Site Constraints; 3) Utilities; and 4)
Availability and Legal Issues. A total of 26 variables were defined that would establish the suitability of a site that could be
developed for the Bozeman Police Department.
The 26 variables were incorporated into an analytically-based matrix used to evaluate each site, including the existing Law &
Justice (L & J) Site, and a numerical "scoring" of each site was established through a combination of site visits, review of
4-3
Carter Goble Lee
CHAPTER FOUR - SITE OPTIONS
.....".,',...'..........,........,.....'
,\ ,,".,
. t.',
I
. '.'" , .
. .
.' "..,
I::''': "::.
.' "'"'' """ .
(",:':'''''' '''>''" :"'::',""', .
:1i6~d:~;~""";.'",,,'.i,,;10,,,~.c':,~H .'.:.... ..... · ......,..::. ""c ';;"""''fl'' ......:..'T, C.' ....,:.;
"~~I._.IIft...,~\.,"IIIJI."...._.AI_.".D ",~"Pl.M
secondary source information, and interviews with public and private-sector individuals familiar with real estate and
development issues in the City of Bozeman. This matrix was reviewed and modified through conversations with City officials.
A numeric rating scale ranging from a low of 0 (zero) through a high of 8 (eight) was used to determine a raw score for each
site. Table 4-2 illustrates the scoring of each site using the 26 variables. A professional architect and urban planner were
used to evaluate each site.
Table 4-2
Alternate Site Evaluation Criteria and Ratings (Raw)
CITY OF BOZEMAN POLICE DEPARTMENT STUDY
ALTERNATE SITES EVALUATION CRITERIA AND RATINGS (RAW)
Site 1: Mandeville Farm Site Weight
Site 2: L & J Site 5 Highly Important
Site 3: City Shops Site 3 Important
1 Little Importance
Rating Scale
This numeric rating scale is to be IJsed for each of the 26 different rating criteria
Excellent = 8
Acceptable = 4
Poor = 2
Unacceptable = 0
81tM
Crttertl 1 2 3
Comments:
1 Highways/Roads 2 4 4
Wei!lht Factor - 5 The Mandeville Farm site is accessible by only
TOTAL SCORE minor/secondary roads. The L & J and City Shops
sites are accessed from City streets.
8 = Adjacent to major highway or major county road
4 = Accessible to major highway or major county road
2 = Access requires use of minor and/or secondary roads
0= Access requires upgrade and/or construction of new secondary roads
Comments:
2 CongestionlTraffic Count 4 0 4
Weiaht Factor - 5 The existing L & J site is surronded by commercial
TOTAL SCORE and residential land uses, with bad traffic
congestion and difficult access during high-traffic
8 = No congestion or competing development periods.
4 = Limited congestion or nearby development
2 = Access improvements needed due to congestion and/or development
o = Substantial current or near-term congestion
4-4
Carter Goble Lee
, ~ ' : ~ : ':, '" ':' ,:; : :", ,'::: "" ,
.: " ':'
, '" '" '" "., ~<(:, .'
I,'...
CHAPTER FOUR -- SITE OPTIONS
Table 4.2 (continued)
Alternate Site Evaluation Criteria and Ratings (Raw)
CITY OF BOZEMAN POLICE DEPARTMENT STUDY
ALTERNATE SITES EVALUATION CRITERIA AND RATINGS (RAW)
Site 1: Mandeville Farm Site Weight
Site 2: L & J Site 5 Highly Important
Site 3: City Shops Site 3 Important
1 Little Importance
Rating Scale
This numeric rating scale is to be used for each of the 26 different rating criteria
Excellent = 8
Acceptable = 4
Poor = 2
Unacceptable = 0
I. con ~a;
8bI
C....rt. 1 2 3
Comments:
3 Fire Department Services 8 8 8
Weight Factor - 5 All properties are within a 10 minute response
TOTAL SCORE time from either the main fire department or a
substation/rural fire department.
8 = Response time under 10 minutes
4 = Response time 10-15 minutes
2 = Response time 15-30 minutes
o = Response time over 30 minutes
4 Hospital and Emergency Medical Comments:
Services 8 8 8
Weight Factor - 5 All sites are within a 10 minute response time
TOTAL SCORE distance from either the hospital or an EMS
station. Location of ambulances may change.
8 = Response time under 10 minutes
4 = Response time 10-15 minutes
2 = Response time 15-30 minutes
o = Response time over 30 minutes
Comments:
5 Proximity to Judicial Facilities 4 8 4
Weight Factor - 3 All sites are within 5 miles of the existing judicial
TOTAL SCORE complex. The Police Department is currently
located on the same site as the courts and
8 = On same or adjacent property detention center.
4 = Within 5 miles
2 = Between 5 and 10 miles
o = Beyond 10 miles
. Adjust for travel time
Comments;
6 Visitor and Public Accessibility 2 8 8
Weight Factor - 5 The existing L & J and City Shops sites are near a
TOTAL SCORE public transit route proposed to be implemented
within the near future.
8 = Site has vehicular. public transportation, and pedestrian access
4 = Site has vehicular and limited pedestrian access
2 = Site has only vehicular access
o = There is no current access to the site.
4.5
Carter Goble Lee
""":"?:'\:~':.{:'j:/. .
.:'."'."..............."..........'.......,..",.'..'.'."""',.....'.,",.,.'.
, ','
-"""""""1'
',' <
:'::""'.".':""'d""."".' .',:' ,,,,,;,;"
M'daf,tA'Naj,:" ....p~..."..'.'.N....,....
,.' """""".'nMl_..,
CHAPTER FOUR - SITE OPTIONS
Table 4-2 (continued)
Alternate Site Evaluation Criteria and Ratings (Raw)
CITY OF BOZEMAN POLICE DEPARTMENT STUDY
ALTERNATE SITES EVALUATION CRITERIA AND RATINGS (RAW)
Site 1: Mandeville Farm Site Weight
Site 2: L & J Site 5 Highly Important
Site 3: City Shops Site 3 Important
1 Li"le Importance
Rating Scale
This numeric rating scale is to be used for each of the 26 different rating criteria
Excellent'" 8
Acceptable'" 4
Poor'" 2
Unacceptable'" 0
1I.t'1 1\/Slcal ;:i118 \iOnSP'8ln
81tH
C...... , 2 3
Comments:
7 Site Size 8 8 4
Weight Factor - 5 At 4.19 acres, the City Shops site is capable of
TOTAL SCORE accommodating a two-story building and surface
parking for approximately 230 cars.
8 '" 5+ acres with tull buffer zone possible
4 '" 4-5 acres with min. 50' bufter zone possible
o '" <:4 acres
Comments:
8 Configuration 2 2 2
Welaht Factor - 3 The City of Bozeman site is triangular in shape, but
TOTAL SCORE has adequate space for a stand-alone Police
Department or a multi-building justice complex.
8 '" 1: 1 ratio of length to width
4 '" 2:1 ratio of length to width
2 '" 3: 1 ratio of length to width
0'" 4;1 or more ratio of length to width
Comments:
9 Parking 8 4 4
Weiaht Factor - 5 The City Shops site is estimated to be capable ot
TOTAL SCORE accommodating up to 230 cars in surface parking.
The City ot Bozeman and L & J sites have a higher
8 '" land available and no conflicts capacity.
4 '" Some parking conflicts but easily solvable
2 '" Parking conflicts somewhat difficult to solve
o '" Parking problems expensive to solve
Comments:
10 Contiguity 8 8 8
Weight Factor. 3 All sites consist of a singie parcel of land.
TOTAL SCORE
8 '" All areas required in a single parcel
4 '" 2 parcelS with immediate adjacency
2 '" 3 parcels with immediate adjacency
o '" Multiple parcels without total immediate adjacency
4-6
Carter Goble Lee
a~"AN;Pm,4et:ANDMQI,CtP~'_.' .
CHAPTER FOUR - SITE OPTIONS
Table 4.2 (continued)
Alternate Site Evaluation Criteria and RatlnQS (Raw)
CITY OF BOZEMAN POLICE DEPARTMENT STUDY
ALTERNATE SITES EVALUATION CRITERIA AND RATINGS (RAW)
Site 1: Mandeville Farm Site Weight
Site 2: L & J Site 5 Highly Important
Site 3: City Shops Site 3 Important
1 lillie Importance
Rating Scale
This numeric rating scale is to be used for each of the 26 different rating criteria
Excellent = 8
Acceptable = 4
Poor = 2
Unacceptable = 0
II. PhYSIcal tilt8 lOonaualnq (CO rlt'G.J
8Itea
Crit.rla 1 2 3
Comments:
11 Soli-Bearing Capacity 4 4 4 Same values were assigned to this category, since
Weiaht Factor - 1 soil-test borings were not available to this
TOTAL SCORE evaluator. General geological conditions in the
Bozeman area suggest that soil bearing capacities
8 = No special added foundation cost are adequate to support the required building types;
4 = Adds up to 20% to foundation cost however, the water table is close to the surface in
2 = Adds up to 50% to foundation cost many areas, and de-watering of foundations andlor
o = Adds up to 75% or more to foundation cost foundation wall waterproofing might be required.
Comments:
12 Slope 8 8 8
Weiaht Factor - 1 All sites are either flat or have only gentle slopes
TOTAL SCORE across buildable areas,
8 = 2 - 4% over 80% of buildable area
4=4-7% .. .. .. .. ..
2 = 7 - g% .. .. .. ..
o = >g% .. .. .. .. ..
Comments:
13 Orientation and Entrance 4 4 8
Weiaht Factor - 1 The City Shops site is accessible on all sides from
TOTAL SCORE City streets, but only two are appropriate access
streets.
8 = Site does not limit orientation for functional access
4 = Moderate on-site regrading required
2 = Moderate work required on and off site
o = Extensive regrading and structures required on and off site
Comments:
14 Drainage 8 8 8
Weillht Factor - 1 All sites exhibited suitable drainage without any
TOTAL SCORE standing water or other evidence of drainage
problems.
8 = Good existing natural drainage
4 = Moderate on.site regrading required
2 = Moderate work required on and off site
o = Extensive regrading and structures required on and off site
4-7
Carter Goble Lee
.............,...~..........
,,~
CHAPTER FOUR - SITE OPTIONS
_AN"IMEANQ:MUHI.Al.C.JmT:NE$O$A"._m~O:FA~le$J>LA"
Table 4.2 (continued)
Alternate Site Evaluation Criteria and Ratinas (Raw)
CITY OF BOZEMAN POLICE DEPARTMENT STUDY
ALTERNATE SITES EVALUATION CRITERIA AND RATINGS (WEIGHTED)
Site 1: Mandeville Farm Site Weight
Site 2: L & J Site 5 Highly Important
Site 3: City Shops Site 3 Important
1 Little Importance
Rating Scale
This numeric rating scale is to be used for each of the 26 different rating criteria
Excellent'" 8
Acceptable'" 4
Poor'" 2
Unacceptable'" 0
II. PhYSical 81leCOnstralnlS fcont'iU
8__
Crltel1ll 1 2 3
Comments:
15 Flood Plain 24 24 24
Welaht Factor - 3 Based on information obtained from the City
TOTAL SCORE Engineer's office, City of Bozeman, none of the
sites is within a flood plain.
8 '" Site is not in nor affected by flood plain
4 '" Site is outside flood plain
2 '" Building area is outside flood plain
o " Flooding could effect operations
Comments:
16 Wetlands 24 24 24
Weight Factor - 3 There was no visual evidence that there were
TOTAL SCORE wetlands on any of the sites. Information
obtained from the office of the City Engineer,
8 " Site is not in nor affected by wetlands City of Bozeman, also indicated that no
4 " Site is outside wetlands wetlands were present.
2 " Building area is outside wetlands
o " Area is totally within designated wetland
III. UlllltI8a
8__
Crlter18 1 2 3
Comments:
17 Electricity 24 24 24
Weight Factor - 3 Electrical service is available at all of the sites.
TOTAL SCORE
8 " Three-phase service at site
4 " Three-phase service within 1 mile
2 " Three-phase service over 1 mile
o '" Three-phase service not available
4-8
Carter Goble Lee
, '"
'O_AN.'lLfC.'I"MQJ_~,
~:~,:::;~\~,,,,,,,;' \, ~i;:~;'.
,";\:i'::,; ;'<',::'.'i::,:.j:;:', ",;,'\'"
. " ;" " , ',,,, ':' ;.<~:'.' :~':',~ ,f,~,;.
;3J;::::r-h:,",;:,::::::::;;,:,;, I'~":'" J" \1
~', :/
.. !' ;' ~,'
CHAPTER FOUR - SITE OPTIONS
Table 4-2 (continued)
Alternate Site Evaluation Criteria and Ratings (Raw)
CITY OF BOZEMAN POLICE DEPARTMENT STUDY
ALTERNATE SITES EVALUATION CRITERIA AND RATINGS (WEIGHTED)
Site 1: Mandeville Farm Site Weight
Site 2: L & J Site 5 Highly Important
Site 3: City Shops Site 3 Important
1 Little Importance
Rating Scale
This numeric rating scale is to be used for each of the 26 different rating criteria
Excellent = 8
Acceptable = 4
Poor = 2
Unacceptable = 0
II.UUlftla' lcont'a.t
'IM
Clttelta 1 2 3
Comments:
18 Water 24 24 24
Weight Factor. 3 A water main crosses the City of Bozeman
TOTAL SCORE site at Mandeville farm, and water is present at
the existing L & J and City Shops sites.
8 = Public water available at site
4 = Public water within 1/2 mile
2 = Public water within 1 mile
o = Public water over 1 mile
Comments:
19 Sewer 24 12 24
Weight Factor - 3 A sewer line crosses the City of Bozeman
TOTAL SCORE Mandeville Farm site. Sewer is also
present at the existing L & J site. but the system
8 = Adequate size main at site may need to be upgraded to accommodate
4 = Upgradable sewer at site future development.
2 = Substantial cost to link to sewer or upgrade
o = Service not available near site
IV. AV,I..D1111V ana 1ACIll1........
81M
Clttelta 1 2 3
Comments:
20 Availability 40 10 40
Weight Factor - 5 The City of Bozeman property at Mandeville
TOTAL SCORE Farm is owned by the City. The existing L & J site
is County-owned. and would not be available
8 = Site owned by City unless a land swap could be executed.
4 = Site easily acquired by City immediately
2 = Site may be available for purchase or land swap
o = Acquirable, but at high price andlor over 5 months
4-9
Carter Goble Lee
.."...... ">'."."..'
" ,
,
~ ' .
ill ,~ ' , '
'~A"NttJ':.DM"j~DtPMc6QQflT.HEF:D$A.."_MD<FActUS$'P~N
CHAPTER FOUR - SITE OPTIONS
Table 4.2 (continued)
Alternate Site Evaluation Criteria and Ratings (Raw)
CITY OF BOZEMAN POLICE DEPARTMENT STUDY
ALTERNATE SITES EVALUATION CRITERIA AND RATINGS (WEIGHTED)
Site 1: Mandeville Farm Site Weight
Site 2: L & J Site 5 Highly Important
Site 3: City Shops Site 3 Important
1 Little Importance
Rating Scale
This numeric rating scale is to be used for each of the 26 different rating criteria
Excellent" 8
Acceptable = 4
Poor" 2
Unacceptable = 0
IV. AvallabllllY and Lea"'..ueaICO!'lt'd.)
,...
Crltillia 1 2 3
Comments:
21 Hazards from Incidents 10 20 20
Weioht Factor - 5 The location of a major railroad line adjacent to
TOTAL SCORE the City of Bozeman site renders the site
susceptible to an act of terrorism or accidental
8 = No anticipated hazards discharge of hazardous materials from a train,
4 = Minor potential hazard from incident
2 = Significant potential hazards from incident
o " Likely incident
Comments:
22 Land and Construction Cost 40 10 40
Weiaht Factor - 5 See comments at item #20 above,
TOTAL SCORE
8 = Little or no cost to City; City already owns
4 " Low to moderate cost to City to acquire land
2 = Moderate to high cost to City to acquire land
o = Extremely high priced real estate - cost is prohibitive
Comments:
23 Neighborhood, Land Use & Zoning
Compatablllty 12 12 12 Since the existing L & J site is occupied by the
Weiaht Factor - 3 the jail, courts and law enforcement, the continued
TOTAL SCORE use for these purposes is allowed; however,
portions of the site currently zoned R-Q will
8 " Jail allowed without zoning variance - no foreseeable conflicts require variance resolution,
4 = Zoning conflict, but variance resolution feasible & future use conflicts not likely
2 = Zoning variance required and future development trends could conflict
o = Incompatible adjacent uses now and in future
4-10
Carter Goble Lee
, ............. ..' ,........... ... . .... ....." QNtrliml'
a~.POL.tCl_.,..M~; .
i 0,;:~,f>~:':~:i",<~:.: :!,.;' " ,~; 1"
;:.!;,';::;;,..,;.':::\.;..:>r:/>~:~:':"i;; .: :'/ ~,<~~w:'. ;:/j^~.;
",. . ' '; ~ ~." l' I. " 1;> >
:I'!.:':;:'~\;" ,.
:, ~~::'J}: :}~~~
"" ".~"::"\:
. ~/~\'.;;l'
':'''''::'1'",:I<Qr
,.,.,;,,;.,
, W',' .."
"\-y~,:,!;'-
.J~:'::'::":''':'~:;~::::I'"
CHAPTER FOUR - SITE OPTIONS
Table 4-2 (continued)
Alternate Site Evaluation Criteria and Ratings (Raw)
CITY OF BOZEMAN POLICE DEPARTMENT STUDY
ALTERNATE SITES EVALUATION CRITERIA AND RATINGS (WEIGHTED)
Site 1: Mandeville Farm Site Weight
Site 2: L & J Site 5 Highly Important
Site 3: City Shops Site 3 Important
1 Little Importance
Rating Scale
This numeric rating scale is to be used for each of the 26 different rating criteria
Excellent = 8
Acceptable = 4
Poor = 2
Unacceptable = 0
IV. Availability a ........
....
C....It. 1 2 a
Comments:
24 Historic & Archeological Impacts 8 8 8
Weight Factor .1 There are no known historic or archeological
TOTAL SCORE impacts on any of the sites.
8 = No known impacts on site
4 = Limited impact possible on adjacent land but can be mitigated
2 = Significant impacts will occur but proper mitigation can be helpful
o = Significant negative impacts cannot be sufficiently mitigated
Comments:
25 Easements 6 12 24
Welaht Factor - 3 There are easements on the City site at Mandeville
TOTAL SCORE Farm and on the existing L & J site. Building
location(s) on the Mandeville Farm site could be
8 = No easements on site impacted by the easement.
4 = Easements exist, but no negative impact
2 = Easements will have impact and cause some re-Iocation
o = Easements will substantially restrict site development
Comments:
26 Hazardous Waste 24 24 12
Weiaht Factor. 3 There are no indications of any hazardous waste
TOTAL SCORE on Sites 1 and 2; however, the present use of
the City Shops Site for vehicle maintenance and
8 = if site is not affected by hazardous waste waste oil collections suggests the possibility of
4 = If site is affected by waste that can be safely mitigated ground contaminants that could require mitigation.
o - If site has hazardous waste
IS'"
Crtterla 1 2 3
TOTAL RAW SCORES 158 150 166
Source: Carter Goble Lee, March 2007
4-11
Carter Goble Lee
. .: ":' Ii\' .j,:, :.'~:";' .
.',
;,:'1; "1.1,;,<,
\ 'I'~'~' :':f' ". .u
.'...Q..NlI.,ClQI,.M_.A.....'..I.,M~E$.'~N. .
CHAPTER FOUR - SITE OPTIONS
Site 1 - Mandeville Farm Site: The south boundary of this property is a portion of the north boundary of a state-owned
property designated Site A in the 2006 report. The portion shown on the aerial photograph below contains approximately 28.4
acres. The triangular-shaped site is accessed on its northeast side from a gravel frontage road and is bordered on its west
side by agricultural land. While the gravel access road leads to the intersection of Mandeville Street and North 7th Avenue, it
also goes in a northwest direction and crosses railroad tracks. With improvements, this could provide secondary access to
other roads. The size of this parcel may be adjusted to accommodate the specific area needs when they are determined.
The site slopes gently downward to the northeast, enabling natural water runoff. The property size is easily sufficient for a
police department facility, and is close to the minimum acreage required to accommodate a complete justice complex with
space available for parking and some future growth. A major utility easement crosses the property, and water and sewer are
available at the site.
4-12
Carter Goble Lee
.:.;\
'~MAN<PQIJge.qllMUN'QlJW.i'.. .'
CHAPTER FOUR - SITE OPTIONS
Site 2 - L & J Site: This site has the obvious advantage of being the existing location of the law and justice center of Gallatin
County as well as the current location of the Bozeman Police Department. The adjacency of the jail to courts is desirable from
the standpoint of inmate movement, and the co.location of law enforcement agencies provides a degree of security. The site
is accessible by a proposed public transportation route, an advantage for the Municipal Court component of the facility.
The site area designated for the Police Department has several drawbacks. One is vehicular access; the site is landlocked,
with residential and commercial properties on three sides. The primary entrance for the entire L & J site is on West Dickerson
Street from South 19th Avenue, which is heavily traveled and frequently congested. Secondary access on South 16th Avenue
leads to West College Street, which also has heavy traffic. Service access to the existing jail is from South 15th Avenue and/or
West Koch Street, both of which are narrow streets that go through residential neighborhoods.
legend
_ Fl'Op05ed 51..oo0.~ lluillllllQ FOOIIl"'"
1lropoH<I5 ..... SIW eOllmlal}
l'an:llllaun<W1K
4.13
Carter Goble Lee
..,..,"
...' "
.....,....... . ""..".,.,...",.",.',.,.."",,1,:"
<'"
. ':'" ,,'
, :", ,', ,.
,~~',..~ti~'M$.M-r.U~'.!~'~iIi>o\\"'!
.:.Il':"~~, ,...\.", ",.""""",J.;IJI:'.L~W;;J\..P::I:~P<~~'
!:>::;rF?~~1"'\.
CHAPTER FOUR ~ SITE OPTIONS
I,j. . ,'i'. "Ll,l,,'::i;ri' ,....,,)"'\ 'I~":..
..._"..0.
;',:. :" I~
,,:::':.Y;{;I:
i,j:
",,:;
~> :';'1~:: 'H .
,',') "
,),
Site 3 ~ Citv Shops Site: This property is bounded on the north by East Tamarack Street, on the east by North Rouse
Avenue, on the south by East Aspen Street, and on the west by North Bozeman Avenue. There are residential areas to
the east, south and west. The property across East Tamarack Street houses Montana Highway Department operations,
Gallatin County DES, Search and Rescue Building, and County Fair Grounds. The site has access to North Rouse
Avenue, which leads directly to downtown and East Main Street.
The major advantages of the site are that it is owned by the City and has infrastructure in place; however, it has some
limitations. One is its size of 4.19 acres, which is nearly one acre less than the recommended minimum area of five
acres. Streets to the south and west are essentially residential streets, and ease of access is reduced. The site is
landlocked, limiting future expansion. Finally, the present use of the site for waste oil collection and vehicle maintenance
suggests the possible presence of soil contaminants that might require potentially costly environmental mitigation. This
should be verified before selecting this site for the new facility.
4.14
Carter Goble Lee
8QZI5'.~CI$,AtfP...:"(,'
i' ;~I.::;:.?::r+\(..:',,:\\;; ,:.
f',",'~' m
~" ,. '."" < i
;:, ~ ','" "
":::"1",
."~ ;,:,~"',
1',':';:\/,"
( 1\" ~ (:; , ::!,,' ' ,..
.":lYS
i:','W:::,: "
,,,,..,,,,'"
CHAPTER FOUR - SITE OPTIONS
Site Ranking
The next step in establishing the Site Evaluation Criteria was to establish a "weight" for each of the variables used to evaluate
the sites. This was done by a joint working group consisting of Police Department staff, the Consultant, and City of Bozeman
representatives. Each variable was discussed and a weight from 1 to 5 was attached to the variable that defined the relative
importance of a variable in selecting a site for a police department facility. The raw scores determined through the site
evaluations were then multiplied by the "weight" determined by the group to define the relative level of importance of each
variable. The final evaluation instrument generated reflects the weighted score applied to each site, as shown in Table 4-3.
Table 4-3
Alternate Site Evaluation Criteria and Ratings (Weighted)
CITY OF BOZEMAN POLICE DEPARTMENT STUDY
ALTERNATE SITES EVALUATION CRITERIA AND RATINGS (WEIGHTED)
Site 1: Mandeville Farm Site Weight
Site 2: L & J Site 5 Highly Important
Site 3: City Shops Site 3 Important
1 Little Importance
Rating Scale
This numeric rating scale is to be used for each of the 26 different rating criteria
Excellent" 8
Acceptable" 4
Poor = 2
Unacceptable" 0
cess
S...
C.-Ita 1 2 3
Comments:
1 Highways/Roads 10 20 20
Weight Factor - 5 The Mandeville Farm site is accessible by only
TOTAL SCORE minorisecondary roads. The L & J and City Shops
sites are accessed from City streets,
8 " Adjacent to major highway or major county road
4 " Accessible to major highway or major county road
2 = Access requires use of minor andlor secondary roads
o " Access requires upgrade andlor construction of new secondary roads
Comments:
2 CongestionlTraffic Count 20 0 20
Weiaht Factor - 5 The existing L & J site is surronded by commercial
TOTAL SCORE and residential land uses, with bad traffic
congestion and difficult access during high-traffic
8 " No congestion or competing development periods.
4 " Limited congestion or nearby development
2 = Access improvements needed due to congestion andlor development
o " Substantial current or near-term congestion
4-15
Carter Goble Lee
. j:~
I,:,q"
\'
I /'
i::,:::i:V,i":'.'
"i:;
, ,,',"
CHAPTER FOUR - SITE OPTIONS
_"'.' """."""'~""""""""""'I"'.""U"
,. "" ..... ,'.. ';1'."
,,,' ," " ,', ,\ ,
.........",..'.,..." . '. .,;:"..1":,,,..
. "'F'i.............,'....'''...i '."" .'.., ............,. .......
"","_IIA8.... .......,... ..,',M.... fAClt.mRPMN
Table 4-3 (continued)
Alternate Site Evaluation Criteria and Ratings (Weighted)
CITY OF BOZEMAN POLICE DEPARTMENT STUDY
ALTERNATE SITES EVALUATION CRITERIA AND RATINGS (WEIGHTED)
Site 1: Mandeville Farm Site Weight
Site 2: L & J Site 5 Highly Important
Site 3: City Shops Site 3 Important
1 Little Importance
Rating Scale
This numeric rating scale is to be used for each of the 26 different rating criteria
Excellent = 8
Acceptable = 4
Poor = 2
Unacceptable = 0
I. C8M(confd.
....
Crllrt. 1 2 3
Comments:
3 Fire Department Services 40 40 40
Weiaht Factor - 5 All properties are within a 10 minute response
TOTAL SCORE time from either the main fire department or a
substation/rural fire department.
8 = Response time under 10 minutes
4 = Response time 10-15 minutes
2 = Response time 15-30 minutes
o = Response time over 30 minutes
4 Hospital and Emergency Medical Comments:
Services 40 40 40
Weight Factor - 5 All sites are within a 10 minute response time
TOTAL SCORE distance from either the hospital or an EMS
station_ Location of ambulances may change_
8 = Response time under 10 minutes
4 = Response time 10-15 minutes
2 = Response time 15-30 minutes
o = Response time over 30 minutes
Comments:
5 Proximity to Judicial Facilities 12 24 12
Weight Factor - 3 All sites are within 5 miles of the existing judicial
TOTAL SCORE complex. The Police Department is currently
located on the same site as the courts and
8 = On same or adjacent property detention center.
4 = Within 5 miles
2 = Between 5 and 10 miles
0= Beyond 10 miles
. Adjust for travel time
Comments:
6 Visitor and Public Accessibility 10 40 40
Weight Factor - 5 The existing L & J and City Shops sites are near a
TOTAL SCORE public transit route proposed to be implemented
within the near future.
8 = Site has vehicular, public transportation, and pedestrian access
4 = Site has vehicular and limited pedestrian access
2 = Site has only vehicular access
o = There is no current access to the site.
4-16
Carter Goble Lee
CHAPTER FOUR - SITE OPTIONS
Table 4.3 (continued)
Alternate Site Evaluation Criteria and Ratings (Weighted)
CITY OF BOZEMAN POLICE DEPARTMENT STUDY
ALTERNATE SITES EVALUATION CRITERIA AND RATINGS (WEIGHTED)
Site 1: Mandeville Farm Site Weight
Site 2: L & J Site 5 Highly Important
Site 3: City Shops Site 3 Important
1 Little Importance
Rating Scale
This numeric rating scale is to be used for each of the 26 different rating criteria
Excellent" 8
Acceptable" 4
Poor" 2
Unacceptable" 0
II. ..nVlnca n
....
Cl1t8r1a 1 2 a
Comments:
7 Site Size 40 40 20
Welaht Factor - 5 At 4.19 acres, the City Shops site is capable of
TOTAL SCORE accommodating a two-story building and surface
parking for approximately 230 cars.
8 " 5+ acres with tull butler zone possible
4 " 4-5 acres with min. 50' buffer zone possible
o " <4 acres
Comments;
8 Configuration 6 6 6
Weight Factor - 3 The City at Bozeman site is triangular in shape, but
TOTAL SCORE has adequate space for a stand-alone Police
Department or a multi-building justice complex.
8 " 1: 1 ratio of length to width
4" 2:1 ratio of length to width
2 "3:1 ratio of length to width
0" 4:1 or more ratio of length to width
Comments:
9 Parking 40 20 20
Weight Filctor . 5 All sites except the existing l & J site are of
TOTAL SCORE suffiCient size to accommodate required
parking with area for future expansion. The
8 " land available and no conflicts present judicial site has limited parking space at
4 " Some parking conflicts but easily solvable present and, if all required future development
2 " Parking conflicts somewhat difficult to solve were built at this location, a multi-level parking
o " Parking problems expensive to solve structure would be required.
Comments:
10 Contiguity 24 24 24
Weiaht Factor - 3 All sites consist of a single parcel of land.
TOTAL SCORE
8 " All areas required in a single parcel
4 " 2 parcels with immediate adjacency
2 " 3 parcels with immediate adjacency
o " Multiple parcels without total immediate adjacency
4-17
Carter Goble Lee
ftii'!i..lN.I;~IM"'<d"""'" "'::/'0........../ ,....... '.' i' .... ..........,.. ......,.......... ....,.,....'. .......'iF..'..........'..<Bp...'.
QWlilII ,. .' ,.~,jl.I;I..IR~.I,....urr,"G1$,gsmM.tAtfQiAOf.1.l'fI ..".;...~N
..............,.,...,..,.'.,'...'"
'I"
CHAPTER FOUR - SITE OPTIONS
Table 4.3 (continued)
Alternate Site Evaluation Criteria and Ratings (Weighted)
CITY OF BOZEMAN POLICE DEPARTMENT STUDY
ALTERNATE SITES EVALUATION CRITERIA AND RATINGS (WEIGHTED)
Site 1: Mandeville Farm Site Weight
Site 2: L & J Site 5 Highly Important
Site 3: City Shops Site 3 Important
1 Little Importance
Rating Scale
This numeric rating scale is to be used for each of the 26 different rating criteria
Excellent" 8
Acceptable" 4
Poor = 2
Unacceptable = 0
1I.l"nwlCllI ~I. ~onslJ'8ln
Sltee
Crlbllla 1 2 3
Comments:
11 Soil-Bearing Capacity 4 4 4 Same values were assigned to this category, since
Weh:lht Factor - 1 soil-test borings were not available to this
TOTAL SCORE evaluator. General geological conditions in the
Bozeman area suggest that soil bearing capacities
8 = No special added foundation cost are adequate to support the required building types:
4 = Adds up to 20% to foundation cost however, the water table is close to the surface in
2 = Adds up to 50% to foundation cost many areas, and de-watering of foundations andior
o = Adds up to 75% or more to foundation cost foundation wall waterproofing might be required.
Comments:
12 Slope 8 8 8
Weight Factor - 1 All sites are either flat or have only gentle slopes
TOTAL SCORE across buildable areas.
8" 2 - 4% over 80% of buildable area
4 = 4 - 7% " " " .. ..
2 = 7 - 9% .. .. .. ..
0=>9% .. .. .. ..
Comments:
13 Orientation and Entrance 4 4 8
Weight Factor. 1 The City Shops site is accessible on all sides from
TOTAL SCORE City streets, but only two are appropriate access
streets.
8 = Site does not limit orientation for functional access
4 = Moderate on-site regrading required
2 = Moderate work required on and off site
o = Extensive regrading and structures required on and off site
Comments:
14 Drainage 8 8 8
Weillht Factor - 1 All sites exhibited suitable drainage without any
TOTAL SCORE standing water Or other evidence of drainage
problems.
8 = Good existing natural drainage
4 = Moderate on-site regrading required
2 = Moderate work required on and off site
o = Extensive regrading and structures required on and otf site
4-18
Carter Goble Lee
''''.AN'POUQIMI.;MWfl: .
';"N'.$I~:;'~: ".'(
0\ :~'\' '>1~1;:
1-".1"
: :.".
, """ ;" ~ j
,',:\01-
\'.i~:;p,',':\''\': ,.,
'i~"
CHAPTER FOUR - SITE OPTIONS
Table 4.3 (continued)
Alternate Site Evaluation Criteria and Ratinas (Weiahted)
CITY OF BOZEMAN POLICE DEPARTMENT STUDY
ALTERNATE SITES EVALUATION CRITERIA AND RATINGS (WEIGHTED)
Site 1: Mandeville Farm Site Weight
Site 2: L & J Site 5 Highly Important
Site 3: City Shops Site 3 Important
1 Little Importance
Rating Scale
This numeric rating scale is to be used for each of the 26 different rating criteria
Excellent" 8
Acceptable" 4
Poor" 2
Unacceptable" 0
II. PhyalcaUil" cone
s...
Crltertll 1 2 3
Comments:
15 Flood Plain 24 24 24
Weight Factor - 3 Based on information obtained from the City
TOTAL SCORE Engineer's office, City of Bozeman, none of the
sites Is within a flood plain.
8 " Site is not in nor affected by flood plain
4 " Site Is outside flood plain
2 " Building area Is outside flood plain
o " Flooding could effect operations
Comments:
16 Wetlands 24 24 24
WelQht Factor - 3 There was no visual evidence that there were
TOTAL SCORE wetlands on any of the sites. Information
obtained from the office of the City Engineer.
8 " Site Is not In nor affected by wetlands City of Bozeman, also Indicated that no
4 " Site is outside wetlands wetlands were present.
2 " Building area is outside wetlands
o " Area is totally within designated wetland
III. UtllRIH
S...
CrIteria 1 2 3
Comments:
17 Electricity 24 24 24
WeiQht Factor - 3 Electrical service is available at all of the sites.
TOTAL SCORE
8 " Three-phase service at site
4 " Three-phase service within 1 mile
2 " Three-phase service over 1 mile
o " Three-phase service not available
4-19
Carter Goble Lee
.....'...'....................'...'
;1:,
CHAPTER FOUR - SITE OPTIONS
Gak";:ImJ~Dlr N;ISU fYriJi.;NR6~:;'i:iidENr .' ..r:nISiPH
e..,..'. ... ","'[!~A" ...u,GI~~'''tTJiii~q;A$SI$@PI,MO .AQII..I .... . tiA.
Table 4.3 (continued)
Alternate Site Evaluation Criteria and Ratings (Weighted)
CITY OF BOZEMAN POLICE DEPARTMENT STUDY
ALTERNATE SITES EVALUATION CRITERIA AND RATINGS (WEIGHTED)
Site 1: Mandeville Farm Site Weight
Site 2: L & J Site 5 Highly Important
Site 3: City Shops Site 3 Important
1 Little Importance
Rating Scale
This numeric rating scale is to be used for each of the 26 different rating criteria
Excellent = 8
Acceptable = 4
Poor = 2
Unacceptable = 0
If. conrd.1
Sltw
C"'telta 1 2 3
Comments:
18 Water 24 24 24
Weiaht Factor. 3 A water main crosses the City of Bozeman
TOTAL SCORE site at Mandeville farm, and water is present at
the existing L & J and City Shops sites,
8 = Public water available at site
4 = Public water within 1/2 mile
2 = Public water within 1 mile
o = Public water over 1 mile
Comments:
19 Sewer 24 12 24
Weight Factor - 3 A sewer line crosses the City of Bozeman
TOTAL SCORE Mandeville Farm site, Sewer is also
present at the existing L & J site, but the system
8 = Adequate size main at site may need to be upgraded to accommodate
4 = Upgradable sewer at site future development.
2 = Substantial cost to link to sewer or upgrade
o = Service not available near site
lV,~ IIiIbllltv and L8aa11.....
Sha
Cl'ltelta 1 2 3
Comments:
20 Availability 40 10 40
Welaht Factor. 5 The City of Bozeman property at Mandeville
TOTAL SCORE Farm is owned by the City. The existing L & J site
is County-owned, and would not be available
8 = Site owned by City unless a land swap could be executed.
4 = Site easily acquired by City immediately
2 = Site may be available for purchase or land swap
o = Acquirable, but at high price and/or over 5 months
4-20
Carter Goble Lee
",... ":,: ':-', .',',',!,.,:::t,'/~"',",',,,':'!, ,",' _(",' i," {>,!:::\\','l~,;,,:':::'i~,I:~ ~\, ">> "I
" , ">':,~;,:~~~:.:;;:,:
. '/,':: c.. :'~?:;:':,;:,:,:~,:':'.,{;';'/;';
. ., ,,,.:~~: 1\; , '":;'( 'I'
!:~:,''':'H;
<,'"
" "f':.
t",:";
CHAPTER FOUR - SITE OPTIONS
Table 4.3 (continued)
Alternate Site Evaluation Criteria and RatlnQS (WeIQhted)
CITY OF BOZEMAN POLICE DEPARTMENT STUDY
ALTERNATE SITES EVALUATION CRITERIA AND RATINGS (WEIGHTED)
Site 1: Mandeville Farm Site Weight
Site 2: L & J Site 5 Highly Important
Site 3: City Shops Site 3 Important
1 Little Importance
Rating Scale
This numeric rating scale is to be used for each of the 26 different rating criteria
Excellent" 8
Acceptable" 4
Poor" 2
Unacceptable" 0
IY.AV an lAM .
SItet
ern.lta 1 2 3
Comments:
21 Hazards from Incidents 10 20 20
Weiaht Factor - 5 The location of a major railroad line adjacent to
TOTAL SCORE the City of Bozeman site renders the site
susceptible to an act of terrorism or accidental
8 " No anticipated hazards discharge of hazardous materials from a train.
4 " Minor potential hazard from incident
2 " Significant potential hazards from incident
o " Likely incident
Comments:
22 land and Construction Cost 40 10 40
WelQht Factor. 5 See comments at item #20 above.
TOTAL SCORE
8 " Little or no cost to City; City already owns
4 " Low to moderate cost to City to acquire land
2 " Moderate to high cost to City to acquire land
o = Extremely high priced real estate - cost is prohibitive
Comments:
23 Neighborhood, Land Use & Zoning
Compatablllty 12 12 12 Since the existing L & J site is occupied by the
Weight Factor - 3 the jail, courts and law enforcement. the continued
TOTAL SCORE use for these purposes is allowed; however,
portions of the site currently zoned R-O will
8 " Jail allowed without zoning variance - no foreseeable conflicts require variance resolution.
4 " Zoning conflict. but variance resolution feasible & future use conflicts not likely
2 " Zoning variance required and future development trends could conflict
o " Incompatible adjacent uses now and in tuture
4-21
Carter Goble Lee
',:r;;lf)!"';li, ;.. .....!}; ....:':,;:;.,'~,. "DI';;'"Ioo;,,; .... ...... .' ;'.;' .,..1',;.. ......... ..;',!'v' /D'<':;' .!"; . "fii"N
;..arI.lfUlI18INDMII,'-. ...."..RrN...i"...ltt.,M.ffMlrll' tI"..,.
CHAPTER FOUR - SITE OPTIONS
Table 4.3 (continued)
Alternate Site Evaluation Criteria and Ratings (Weighted)
CITY OF BOZEMAN POLICE DEPARTMENT STUDY
ALTERNATE SITES EVALUATION CRITERIA AND RATINGS (WEIGHTED)
Site 1: Mandeville Farm Site Weight
Site 2: L & J Site 5 Highly Important
Site 3: City Shops Site 3 Important
1 Little Importance
Rating Scale
This numeric rating scale is to be used for each of the 26 different rating criteria
Excellent = 8
Acceptable = 4
Poor = 2
Unacceptable = 0
IV. Avallabl IItY ann UlIJ8II....... lconra.
,...
Crttella , 2 .3
Comments:
24 Historic & Archeological Impacts 8 8 8
Weight Factor" 1 There are no known historic or archeological
TOTAL SCORE impacts on any of the sites.
8 = No known impacts on site
4 = Limited impact possible on adjacent land but can be mitigated
2 = Significant impacts will occur but proper mitigation can be helpful
o = Significant negative impacts cannot be sufficiently mitigated
Comments:
25 Easements 6 12 24
Weiaht Factor - 3 There are easements on the City site at Mandeville
TOTAL SCORE Farm and on the existing L & J site. Building
location(s) on the Mandeville Farm site could be
8 = No easements on site impacted by the easement.
4 = Easements exist, but no negative impact
2 = Easements will have impact and cause some re-Iocation
o = Easements will substantiallY restrict site development
Comments:
26 Hazardous Waste 24 24 12
Weiaht Factor - 3 There are no indications of any hazardous waste
TOTAL SCORE on Sites 1 and 2; however, the present use of
the City Shops Site for vehicle maintenance and
8 = if site is not affected by hazardous waste waste oil cOllections suggests the possibility of
4 = If site is affected by waste that can be safely mitigated ground contaminants that could require mitigation.
o - If site has hazardous waste
Sites
Crttert. 1 2 3
TOTAL WEIGHTED SCORES 526 482 546
Source: Carter Goble Lee, March 2007
4-22
Carter Goble Lee
8_MAN'POucE;~Q'MUNJeJPM;alli;
,;,\""w',::,;'
CHAPTER FOUR - SITE OPTIONS
The process identified Site 3 - City Shops Site as the one best suited for a stand-alone police department facility. While its
size and the possibility of subsurface contaminants are negative factors, its location with good street access, the proximity of
public transportation, and current ownership by the City were positive factors.
The Mandeville Farm Site - Site 1 ranked a strong second in the scoring. Negative points are primary road access, presence
of a major utility easement across the property, lack of public transportation near the site, and proximity to potential hazards
associated with the railroad line.
Site 2 - The L&J Site - ranked third in the scoring. Favorable factors are its proximity to the existing Courthouse, with
established vehicular and pedestrian travel routes and adequate area for a structure and surface parking. Depending upon
the future use of the rest of the L & J site, future building and parking expansion may be possible. Major drawbacks are the
need to obtain the site, either through purchase or a land swap with Gallatin County (the L & J property owner); vehicle
accessibility from high traffic volume streets, and a location that is surrounded by residential and commercial development.
Alternative Plan
Given financial implications and time constraints of acquiring a different site through either purchase or land swap, alternative
ways were considered to determine if a new police department facility could be located on the existing L&J site. This would
need to be done in the context of potential long term growth without overcrowding. An obvious solution is to reduce the
number of components located on the present site, and several scenarios to accomplish this were considered.
In preparing this report, the findings of an earlier study prepared for Gallatin County by CGL and Kaplan McLaughlin Diaz in
which criminal justice space and facilities needs were assessed and development options were discussed.3 The findings of
the previous report should be taken into account in considering which components could be relocated elsewhere and which
ones could stay, given projections for growth and future space needs.
Ootion A: One solution is to maintain the Courts, related judicial components and law enforcement agencies at the present
L&J Site and build the new Detention Center at another location. An advantage is that, by moving the Detention Center from
what is primarily a residential/light commercial area, a "non-conforming" use is removed. Of the other sites evaluated, the
City-owned Mandeville Farm site is of adequate size to accommodate current and projected jail space needs as well as having
area available for other judicial or county agencies that need space.
A disadvantage of this option is that much of the passenger vehicle traffic and parking will still be present at the L&J Site,
although service truck traffic will be reduced considerably. Another is the need to transport inmates to and from court
appearances by vehicle, resulting in transportation costs, the assignment of transport staff, and security issues. This could be
reduced by greater use of video conferencing or locating a First Appearance and Arraignment Hearing Room within the new
Detention Center.
3 "Gallatin County/Bozeman Criminal Justice Space and Facilities Needs Assessment", Final Report, October 2004, prepared by Carter Goble Lee -
Kaplan McLaughlin Diaz,
4-23
Carter Goble Lee
~",.
"i
.i.fi....
.,,,:II~.,
CHAPTER FOUR - SITE OPTIONS
Option B: A second scenario is to relocate law enforcement components to another site, leaving the Detention Center and
Courts at the current L&J Site. This option has several desirable features:
. Inmates can continue to be moved on foot between jail and court;
. The high volume of law enforcement traffic and required parking is eliminated;
. Space would be available for projected future Detention Center and Courts expansion;
. Accommodation of future parking needs may be achievable with surface parking only.
This scenario would have a positive effect on expansion space for the courts, the detention facility and available parking area.
A continued drawback is the need for truck service access to the Detention Center as well as the presence of a "non-
conforming" use surrounded by commercial and residential development.
Another factor that would impact Option B is current consideration to develop a new 9-1-1 Center at another location. The
present center, located in the basement of the original school building, is undersized for projected growth and does not meet
security and seismic requirements applicable to this function. Although there are space and operational advantages to co-
locating the 9-1-1 Center with law enforcement agencies, a stand-alone facility can be accomplished without a severe 1055 of
operational efficiency. Moving this component from the L&J Site would also make additional office or support space available
for Court or other functions that remain at this site.
Summary
For the 20-year projected needs and future growth, a new police headquarters should be located on a site of at least 5
acres and a consolidated City and County law and justice center will require at least 30 acres. Of the sites evaluated,
two (City Shops and L & J) are suitable for a stand-alone police facility. The City Shops site, while less than 5 acres, can
meet area requirements with a two-story structure and surface parking. The building could be set back 50 feet from any
street or property line, and parking could be separated from property lines by a buffer strip approximately 15 feet wide.
Only one of the sites - Mandeville Farm - is of the recommended minimum size to accommodate a full justice complex;
however, the site is not ideally located within the City's service area and may impact police response times.
A preliminary project cost estimate of $12.5 million in May 2007 dollars was computed for a police headquarters based
upon the 20-year space program.
4-24
Carter Goble Lee
APPENDIX 1
PERSONNEL PROJECTION DETAIL
I~ (~~'
~~..~.~.
~I" ;I~
'0.,,,,,,, ,l"."
.\';' :. :.~
..""T;n;<;;;~iJ;. ..;"'H"l. ....... ... ,'iH,,{..'.J)'" .................. '.. ...,E..; ........, ..... .J"........np ".H
..."._;1~J_.JIf~IH.il.II...Mt'_.MOJUt'$$" ,LI.
;,:;,",;;E~;j:~>.~:, , ,
APPENDIX 1 ~ PERSONNEL PROJECTION DETAIL
Municipal Court Personnel Projection Detail: The charts below present the historic data and trends from 2001 to 2006
for service population, Bozeman Municipal Court staff, and court filings. The variables used for the personnel projection
models - future service population totals and court filings - are also shown. To project court filings for future years, an
analysis of historic court filings through historic number change, linear regression, and ratios to historic service
population from 2001 to 2006 was reviewed. For planning purposes, the average of the historic number change and
average ratio of court filings to service population was selected and applied to future service population levels.
Service Population 32,359 33,653 35,235 37,596 40,002 41 ,602
Bozeman Municipal Court Staff 5.00 5.00 5.00 6.00 6.00 6.00
Court Filings 10,925 13,261 10,132 10,528 9,471 12,192
Staff 11 ,000 Population 0.15 0.15 0.14 0.16 0.15 0.14
Filings / 1,000 Population 337.62 394.05 287.55 280.03 236.76 293.06
Filings/ Staff 2,185.00 2,652.20 2,026.40 1.754.67 1,578.50 2,032.00
Staff 1.00 0.20 20% 4% 5.50
Court Filings 1,267.00 253.40 12% 2% 11084.83
Staff/1,000 Crime Rate (0.01) 0.00 -7% -1% 0.15
Filings 11 ,000 Population (44.56) -8.91 -13% -3% 304.85
Filingsl Staff (153.00) -30.60 -7% .1% 2038.13
Service Population
1) Service Population
Court Filings
1) Historical Number Change (+253 Per Year)
1) Linear Regression
.~~.~~'~
2) Ratio Court Filings to 1,000 Service Population
a. Existing" 293.06
b. High" 394.05
c. Average" 304.85
d. Low" 236.76
Recommend Average 1 & 2c
Ratio to 1.000 Service Population
53,096 67,765 86,488 11 0,383
13,459 14,726 15,993 17,260
-~-~"~~"..~_.' ~.'.
10,091 9,428 8,765 8,103
15,560 19,859 25,346 32,349
.-.-..,.
20,923 26,703 34,081 43,497
~-~~,~'~, ~~,-~
16,186 20,658 26,366 33,650
12,571 16,044 20,477 26,135
14,823 17,692 21,179 25,455
279.17 261.08 244.88 230.61
A1-1
Carter Goble Lee
APPENDIX 2
SPACE STANDARDS
r '/:~" i
~ (';~
~~\. 1 ,,' ! f .
'.
.:\i';::.
- ,",.. ""'I'''.,"'~:''~'' " "
. ""i,\! '''/ ,~ 1 \ I
:~:.::~"
:";:',:i:.':'.:,
(
_AN.iA"O.II~IPAL(..UI'.tNIEtiA.E$.g'f"t4IJ'FACtJIII.'PW.
APPENDIX 2 - SPACE STANDARDS
Building Standards: Suggesting space to satisfy the needs of a functional component of the criminal justice system is a
process of applying space allocations and standards (if existent) against the operational requirements of the functional
component (e.g., Police Administration, Police Investigations, Municipal Court, etc.). The origins of the guidelines and
standards recommended by the Consultant vary. For example, a number of sources are available for courtroom standards,
law enforcement headquarter needs, and office standards for personnel classifications. Even the size of public toilets can
be derived from building codes. However, standards for a conference room, a cafeteria, a queuing area, etc., do not exist in
a formal way, but a combination of "best practice" guidelines and common sense yields data from which space needs can
be determined.
A critical aspect of the determination of space is the application of standards or guidelines. In a criminal justice
environment, space needs are often more specialized and complex than those of the typical office environment. Clerical
staff, for example, must have access to a large number of current court files in addition to customer service windows and
individual workspaces. The space standard for staff of this type is larger than that recommended for a typical office
worker, based on an estimate of total workspace needed per staff person.
Space standards are regular measurements of space per person or per unit that are used to plan for future space needs.
For some types of construction, commonly used space standards exist. In office environments, for example, Herman
Miller and other furniture manufacturers use recommended space standards for cubicle and office sizes. These
standards are estimated in Net Square Feet, or NSF.
Space standards are required to:
· Establish uniformity and consistency among personnel in all City departments;
· Establish uniformity and consistency in the allocation of space for equipment throughout the City;
· Determine the space required to support the professionals in the City and allow them to perform at peak
efficiency;
· Provide a uniform basis for forecasting space needs for personnel and equipment in order to logically plan for
the acquisition of future owned and leased space; and
· Determine the probable cost of needed space.
In addition to conversations with court and law enforcement staff, standards were drawn from the National Center for
State Courts, Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA), International Association of Chiefs
of Police (IACP), General Services Administration standards, and industry experience in preparing space guidelines for
criminal justice departments. The standards have been separated into the following four general groupings:
A2-1
Carter Goble Lee
~!!;~it~~:'~:;~:;;iI;.I~"\~:i~~t~:li,,iT'\.
~<'h':\~;~~;'~1<:: .,
APPENDIX 2 - SPACE STANDARDS
1. Administrative Spaces - Typically, a jurisdiction develops general space guidelines for administrative functions
such as office or workstation sizes for various classifications of personnel. These guidelines or standards are
applied across all agencies and vary based only on the number of staff by position description; e.g. department
head, supervisor/manager, clerical workstation, number of people in a conference room. For administrative
spaces, standards were established based on General Services Administration standards, similar standards
from other counties, and the Consultant's professional planning experience.
Ct6M'l ~",,'i....... .. .....M&.
~S;~.""!'~:,....~~~W!';...,'
;; ,:".. "0>:"?;, :~,j,.."",: 'i'.~, >,~':,::t..,'",,~'.J ,<.J:~
Elected Official
Department Head/Component Director's Office
Assistant Department Head/Assistant Director
Supervisor/Manager
Attorney's Office
Standard Private Office
Semi-Private Office (2 persons)
DepartmenUDivision Secretary
Oversize Workstation
Reception Counter & Workstation
Standard Workstation
Clerical/Intern Workstation
Service Counter w/ Work Area
Public Counter
Rear Counter Work area
Public Queuing Area
Office Waiting Area
Conference Room
Interview Room/Classroom
Meeting Room
200
180
150
120
140
100
150
100
80
80
64
48
80/ Station
25/ Station
15/ Station
10/ Person
15/ Person
20/ Person
20/ Person
15-18/ Person
2. Judicial and Judicial Support Spaces - In every building, some function (usually the mission of the building)
establishes the "form." In a courthouse, the litigation space (courtroom) establishes the form of the building.
Since the proposed courthouse will be far more than a place of litigation, the actual space required for
courtrooms will be less than the critical support spaces. Standards for courtrooms and hearing rooms and
other spaces directly related to the courtroom were derived from the National Center for State Courts, the
United States Court Design Guide, and the Consultant's court planning experience.
A2-2
Carter Goble Lee
,.'....,.......'.."',..'.,...'...,.,.....".....,....,."""".,.,.,
." ,:,,:,:.;;(';
. .: ,
APPENDIX 2 - SPACE STANDARDS
....1N1i.'ANtl.,NIClPMCOUIfIESOSAUlUM.UMQ'.'.Clt.ll1EI.IfLAtf
Standard Courtroom
Soundlock Vestibule
Victiml Witnessl Attorney Interview Room
Equipment Room
Single Holding Cell wI Combination Unit
Group Holding Room wI Combination Unit
Judge'sl Master's Hearing Room
Mediation Room
Judicial Officer's Chamber (Incl. toilet, closet)
Judicial Assistant (Incl. waiting for 4-6)
1,600
120
100
60
50
251 Person
800
360
320
200
3. Law Enforcement Spaces - Law enforcement facilities have multiple operational and spatial requirements.
Offices, workstations, conferencing areas do not differ significantly from non-law enforcement situations;
however, "non-desk space" requirements including evidence and property storage, classroom and physical
training and operational staging areas need to be examined based on their specific functionally requirements.
The basic principle in planning law enforcement facilities, as stated by the Commission on Accreditation for Law
Enforcement Agencies (CALEA) and the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) is that all levels of
staff must be provided with adequate space to carry out their responsibilities safety and effectively. Although
there are no space standards that relate solely to police operations, the experience of similar type agencies
offers guidance in assessing local requirements.
Physical Training Room
Mustering Room
Law Enforcement Training Classroom
Lab Vehicle Garage
1201 Person
201 Person
351 Student
4001 Bay
A2-3
Carter Goble Lee
8OBIM_ROUCEANll,MUH)QtP&;"-,,'
", .,;;:'7::;~:\',":d~
\~.~, ;.t'.,';:'\:
".;..c,,'!"
. '. " :'." ~'~;::" ,;';
\" ,,~,,:,..
'i' , , :." "" ":,' : " ~ 1 ,,:" ::" i ' , " ,,'
"\ '
y:,,',,;/.k,,::';:li!::\;::i~:;:,' .:::.:,:':.:. ',;'
, , ,," ,,; ;;.; ; : : -::' . ) : ~" -I ' ;
.', u I :,;;:~ :'.;:'. :~; ':~'>;:':,:.':~:, j:j}, i':;;i:. :::.. I
\,oi:",,?:,
, "
':"l!!iA;)jtti.JtfD1',~~.".'.:'.'",'
, ""'''fJ!P!fJ''''''~;t;;~,>",,.,''1 ,
APPENDIX 2 - SPACE STANDARDS
4. Administrative Support Spaces - Court and law enforcement facilities house a variety of functions that are
essential for the efficient operation of the criminal justice system. While definitive space standards are helpful, in
many instances precise standards are not available and, were they so, might not be appropriate for support
spaces. For example, the choice of a filing system is dependant upon the types and volume of files; thus a
uniform standard for filing space is inappropriate. What has been offered in the support space standards
represents "guidelines" more than definitive standards. The guidelines are drawn more from typical institutional and
private sector examples, but are commonly used in the planning of judicial and law enforcement facilities. At this stage
of planning, final decisions on equipment are unnecessary, but the information offered through interviews has been
useful in the suggestion of the space guidelines. Space guidelines are presented in the categories of Support Spaces,
Public Areas, and Equipment and Storage Unit Sizes.
Support Spaces
Private Toilets (H/C Accessible)
MUltiple Person Toilet
Janitor's Closet
Computer Equipment Room
Open Files Area
Beverage Station
WorkJ Copy Room
Staff Break Room
Office Supply Storage
General Storage
File Storage Room
Vending Machine
Public Areas & Circulation
Lobby
Public Toilets
Elevator Lobby
Public Elevator
Telephone Bank
Public Information Kiosk
Equipment & Storage Unit Sizes
Copy Machine - Desk Top
Copy Machine - Floor
Fax Machine - Desk Top
Computer and Printer Stand
Microfilm Carousel
Microfilm Reader
50
401 Person
30
100
151 Unit
30
120 - 200
120-150
50 -100
100-150
Varies
151 Machine
121 Person
80 - 2001 Codes
501 Elevatorl Floor
801 Elevatorl Floor
151 Telephone
160
35 .
60 ·
25 ·
25 .
5
25 ·
A2-4
Carter Goble Lee
.............."'......................'.........................
" .!:, , ,
~':
, .
. .
, ':::"
, ' : ,,' ::" , ,': ' , : ' :: " :: :" ~ : ' : : ,,\ , ' , , : : " . ': ~ ~,,:: ;" ,,"" , : ' . .
D~WM~'ti':~ICe...unltlNI_I1J.;Ci Ud'N . ft.,. .. '.. ." SMlNtMD'IClJ'I1E$1>lA
~.....""~~M,...""P'I...........aO..81' ..Eewl./........... ......... . ........ ... ........... ..IW.. ...... ........ ...... N
APPENDIX 2 - SPACE STANDARDS
Storage File Box (stacked 5 high)
Shelf Storage (15 LF - 5 shelves @ 3 LF)
Storage Cabinet
Vertical File (assume average 4 drawers high for required floor area)
Lateral File (assume average 4 drawers high for required floor area)
Drawing Flat File
Drawing Vertical File
Plan Holder Rack
Deed Books (may be slacked 8 or higher in flat racks)
. Includes floor area required for operator.
3
3
5
7
9
12
7
6
3
Guidelines for Building Grossing Factors. The estimation of the non-assignable space essential for the operation of
a building is less scientific than the net area space standards for an office, workstation, or cafeteria. The departmental
gross factor (DGSF as explained earlier) is an attempt to define the space that is necessary to access an office,
workstation, or cafeteria seat. Also, if the space is enclosed (such as a private office), then wall thickness must be
added to the inside dimension (NSF) of the space to obtain an accurate accounting of the total space required to support
the private office.
As an example, a private office with an inside dimension of 10' X 12' is 120 net square feet (NSF) in size; however, to
get to the office, a corridor is required. For the sake of example, assume that a 4'-0" corridor is located in front of the 10'
dimension of the private office. If another office is located directly across the corridor, the two offices "share" the
corridor. Therefore, the non-assignable area (DGSF) assigned to the one private office is 10' X 2' (half the corridor
width), or 20 SF. If the office is enclosed, then the thickness of the walls must also be calculated. Assuming 42 linear
feet (10'+12'+10'+12') and a thickness of six inches, the resultant area consumed by the walls is 22 SF (42' X .5").
Adding the corridor width and the wall thickness together yields 42 SF to support a private office of 120 NSF, or 35% of
the NSF.
This example has been simplified for explanation. In reality, the side walls of the 120 NSF office are likely to be shared
with an adjoining office, reducing the 22 SF of wall thickness to 16. But, the example has not included area for electrical
closets or file server rooms or other spaces that are necessary to meet functional needs. Therefore, the 35%
departmental gross factor (DGSF) is reasonable for an area that is predominantly individual rooms. In large open
spaces (e.g., a workstation environment for filing clerks), the DGSF factor can be reduced.
The calculation of building gross square feet (BGSF) is much the same, but in this instance, the programmer is
attempting to estimate the non-assignable area that is attributed to the building such as elevators and lobbies.
A2.5
Carter Goble Lee
,.' !'F::ft;:~:':, :i::,4. \l;'"':;:,:;;if;","J.~I":'''i,t..,
~',;,
APPENDIX 3
RAILROAD SECURITY
e..
lk&~\
\ I
:-\'" .,"
..'...'..'.',.....'...
"
APPENDIX 3 - RAILROAD SECURITY
B_AU,tft6j':j_\ii';'\;"PI-C_TNEJl!",~A"D '. ...... ..';. ,'....,NT .....,..,. 'i~ ....... ',.' .p
.'......,., " ....,. _. ""'!~~,,~rMD,.llII.~, '.. -..... ..' ...' ...., '._.. ~ ~"llt~.:~$,.. .J.AH"",
Background: Since 9/11, the possibility of terrorist acts against public targets, including buildings and transportation
systems, has raised concerns in many sectors. The".. . State Department reports that in 1991, 20% of all violent attacks
worldwide were against transportation targets; by 1998, 40% involved transportation targets, with a growing number
directed at bus and rail systems".1 Although the more high-profile attacks have been against passenger targets in large
urban areas (e.g. Tokyo subway station poisonous gas release, Madrid commuter train and London bus bombings),
freight and passenger trains on railroad systems nationwide may pose tempting targets to terrorists.
Another concern is for accidents or natural disasters that may cause the release of toxic substances or other hazardous
materials. The derailing of six tank cars containing chlorine in Graniteville, SC in January, 2005 caused nine deaths, and
other accidents have lead to damage to and loss of property, displacement of residents near railroads, serious injuries,
and some deaths. Whether caused by natural disaster, accident or terrorist act, citizens want and expect reassurances
that they will be protected by all reasonable means against such events.
Planning for the development of a new Bozeman Police Department facility included evaluating a possible building site
with the northern property line abutting a railroad right-of-way. The track in question is leased by Montana Rail Link from
the Burlington Northern and Sante Fe Railway (BNSF), and carries both passenger and freight traffic. A concern is the
impact on the occupants of a public building should an incident occur. This appendix addresses the factors to be
considered if this particular site is selected as the location of the new facility.
Discussion. Railroad security and safety in the United States are regulated by the Federal Railroad Administration
(FRA), a part of the U.S. Department of Transportation, through several divisions:
· The Office of Safety "promotes and regulates safety throughout the Nation's railroad industry,"2 and trains and
certifies State safety inspectors to enforce Federal rail safety regulations. It also collaborates actively with
railroad companies to provide consensus recommendations from the industry on a range of regulatory issues.
· The Hazardous Materials Division administers "a safety program that oversees movement of hazardous
materials (including dangerous goods) such as petroleum, chemical and nuclear products. .."3 Their current
regUlatory program includes such items as a hazardous materials incident reduction program, programs dealing
with tank car standards, and spent nuclear fuel and high-level nuclear waste programs. The FRA has extensive
guidance documents concerning regulations, training and programs to enhance safety in the movement of
hazardous materials.4
· Environmental issues are addressed through implementation of Departmental policies relating to impacts of rail-
road operations on the environment.
Construction Impacts. While research identified many sources of information about railroad safety and related issues,
this Consultant did not find any specific requirements or even recommendations for construction standards for public
buildings in near proximity to railroad lines. Since a portion of the BNSF line is within the city limits of Bozeman, the
Building Inspector and the department of Planning and Community Development were consulted to determine if any
local regulations would apply to such construction. Aside from compliance with the current edition of the International
Building Code, which applies to all construction within the City, these officials cited no special construction requirements.
A3-1
Carter Goble Lee
APPENDIX 3 - RAILROAD SECURITY
Appropriate design and construction standards that may be applied to a police department facility, especially one that
includes municipal courts, are those published by the General Services Administration (GSA) for public buildings.5 Many
of the planning and design criteria and guidelines in this publication were adopted following the 1995 bombing of the
Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. Section 9 of this document addresses requirements for U.S. Court
Facilities, and although a city municipal court varies widely from a Federal court, some of the same planning principles
are relevant. This document also includes guidelines for site planning and design, structural-mechanical-electrical
engineering, fire protection, and life safety.
Additional relevant information, especially concerning courtrooms and prisoner holding areas, may be obtained from the
following sources:
. United States Courts Design Guide (USCDG)
. United States Marshal Service (USMS)
. Department of Justice (DOJ) Vulnerability Assessment of Federal Facilities
. Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) techniques6
Recommendations. The Consultant believes that compliance with relevant sections of the USCDG is a prudent
measure to minimize the potential impacts of a natural or man-made incident occurring on the adjacent railroad track.
Several recommended actions are noted in this report, including the establishment of a collaborative working group
composed of all persons responsible for the safety and security of the building components to interact closely throughout
the entire design and construction process. Such participants should include the client, local building and fire officials,
the appropriate designers and consultants.
Recommended actions include the following:
1. Establish zones of protection including a perimeter buffer zone of at least 100 feet from the railroad right-of-way.
This may include earth berms that would be at least as high as the top of a railroad car or its cargo on the track.
2. Create building setbacks of at least 50 feet from any road, parking areas or driveways on the site.
3. Provide bollards, street furniture or other obstacles to prevent the driving of vehicles to within 50 feet of any
building, with the exception of approved security or delivery vehicles.
4. Design site circulation to prevent high speed approaches by vehicles.
5. Control staff parking, official vehicle access, and service area access by means of gates or other security
devices.
6. As appropriate, create a "hardened" facility that may include blast resistant construction; blast or ballistic
resistant glazing; protection of critical building components such as emergency generator, communications and
information systems, and fire protection systems; structural measures to mitigate against progressive collapse;
and careful location of key offices and support spaces within the buildings. Chapter 8 of the GAS Facilities
Standards contains many recommended practices and provides additional reference sources.
A3-2
Carter Goble Lee
...............'......
.' .'
~~
:1D~.:iI~;;ice_k,iPI.i~..lt:cM~l!Jr&.teli9:\eAHE$.DIW!P,.I.tI!l.ItI..,~.MN
,~\;\~~:,.., ",J~!," 'Ip~""~, ,'" ,,~<. ",,:'yy,,", n." ~9,",", "" ,,, ~~:",:'::i""., r,,,'1:1"'t,,,.~:'L~,ti~:. ,,,,,:,,..,
APPENDIX 3 - RAILROAD SECURITY
Summary. Although the above discussion was developed in response to concerns about the proximity of the Mandeville
Farm site to the railroad track, many of the site and building planning strategies apply to any public building about which
there are security concerns. While no building can ever be completely invulnerable from natural disasters or man-made
incidents, reasonable care should be taken to minimize negative impacts on the building and its occupants.
1 Intermodal Transportation Safety and Security Issues: Training against Terrorism; Ronald W. Tarr, Vicki McGurk, and Carol James,
University of Central Florida; published in Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 8, No.4, 2005.
2 FRA website, www.fra.dot.aov/us/content/3
3 FRA website, www.fra.dot.aov/us/content/337
4 FRA website, www.fra.dot.aov/us/content/789
5 Facilities Standards for the Public Buildings Service, U.S. General Services Administration, Office of the Chief Architect, March 2005.
6 Crowe, Timothy D., Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design, National Crime Prevention Institute (1991). See also publications
by the National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice (NILECJ).
A3.3
Carter Goble Lee
a.
CI)
Q
8
, fIIIt!
o
,:1..
~
,
i
(fJi
c.. 'i
I
(/J't", 0' \:
I, J ", I,'" I
.: . ~
' i
If .-: ,
UJ :.;::;!
~,Ol
_w ", I,' I
Co . \I.f ~
c: Oi
~' s.;..
.......0..
~~
3 (fJ
o~
(fJ .5 I
G)., ',i,' ~I"
" : ;,1 'i
'" ,
~c
.~I
u.."I", I"
I :'
L-
Q)
~
Q)
E
en
Q)
Q)
L-
Ll..
.
....,
~
..c
+-'
o
E
~
an Police Departm:,'..
Vendor Qualifications
f' Northwestern University, Center for Public Safety
* International Association of Chiefs of Police
* Etico Solutions, Inc.
tt 12 years teaching experience
f' 2.5 years of full-time police allocation studies and
consulting.
Study Parameters
* Data was gathered by Bozeman PO and
forwarded to Etico Solutions for analysis.
it Initial allocation workbook created and
returned to Bozeman PD.
* Extended forecasting conducted by Bozeman
PO based on the allocation workbook created
by Etico Solutions.
Methodolgy
-
* Staffing estimates are based on obligated workload
data gathered from the Bozeman PO CAD database.
f Five years of CAD data was used to establish a trend
in obligated workload.
f Only obligated calls for service and obligated service
activities are included in the workload base.
~
o
8
:' ~ :
o
~,i
,I
s= .....';'...
'"
1
~j
!
L-
CO
a>
>-
m '!,
I
L-
a>
0-
en
L-
:J
o
I
"'C
CD
........,
CO
C)
--
-
.c
o
I
fOOZ
fOOZ
i
rOOZ
I
IEOOl
I
,I
, ~OOZ
~J
Annual Obligated Workload
___m 2~~2 __~_~_ J _,__~4~?~~ ~__20 ~5~____ ~ ___~?~~_~~_~_
2003 24589 2016 39965
~ ~~~y~~--~~.~~> .~_~"_ ...............__~~. ~ ~~~__ ~ ~..._~...~.r__~_.. .~_~~_. __ _~__ _~_~~~~~_~ ._~.<_~~_____~_
2004 26765 2017 41207
.~._--~~>~-_.~~ ~---~~-~-~~~~ - ~~~-.- _._.~ _____~__T_ _~_ ~ __.__~~__~_~~>__ .__.~ ~
2005 29166 2018 42349
~ --~-~~-. "- -- --...~ ...
2006 26591 2019 43651
. --.-. ------~-.------ -~-.~ ~-~-.~ -~~~~-.._.- .-----... - .- ~--~.._-~. ~..~~-__~__ - _____~~__.~ - _u.__
2007 29035 2020 44911
-- .__.~~-~-~ ~- ----~------------ ~-~~-~~ ~.~~-~ --~~ ....~~--~.._~--~~~ ~..---..~ ___~~_..<.__.~.~U~_ _._
2008 30336 2021 46157
~-~~-~-~- -~~. -~~--~~---~ . ~-- ~ -~-~-~~. .-- - ~- -~--~.... ------~-- --~-~--.-- - ---~---- ~ ~- -- _.~-----~~--,~~.--._.---- .....~
2009 31567 2022 47388
~._~- ". .~-~~---- .~---~._-_.._~~~.._~ --~--------~---~-~ - ~ ~_...--- ~-~---.. ~._.- . -------~~-~-..
2010 32365 2023 48643
~~~~~.~ .- .. ~ -. .-.~_.. --_~_~. ~~ _T_.___~___"._
2011 33479 2024 49911
.~~- - - --~- ~-~-~.~-~_.._---~- ~~~--~--- - - ~ -~..._y~.~
2012 35239 2025 51151
~~~._---~- -~ -~ -~-.._.-~-~--~- ~- -- --._---~->~,~, ~~-~_._~~~~~~~_. .~~ ~ .._-~~--~-~
2013 36182 2026 52399
~~~--~-~- ~ . Q-_... _~_-~~~~_~,. 1. ~.. _... __ _~~~__~_ _~ .... ~_._~___.~___.. .~_. _~. ~._ _ __, ~_~_~_~_~~~_~._. ~ ~ ~._ ,___ __~ _,,_ , ., _ . ~ ~_. ____._._______~~~_~.
2014 37406 2027 53653
an Police Departm__:,
Forecasted Obligated Hours Per
Year
55,000
44,000
33,000
22,000
11 ,000
o
2002
2007
2012
2017
2022
2027
~
an Police Departm:' ~
Forecasted Obligated Hours Per
Year
55,000
44,000
33,000
22,000
11 ,000
o
2002
2007
2012
2017
2022
2027
Setting a Performance Level
f The numbers shown previously represent only
the obligated hours for patrol.
f This assumes that all officers run call-to-call at
all times.
f We must include some unobligated time to
improve performance.
Why include unobligated time?
~ Reduce officer burnout ~ Maintain beat integrity
* Incident Follow-up * Reduce Response Times
* Community Oriented Policing * Improve Officer Safety
* Problem Oriented Policing * Improve Citizen Safety
* Spontaneous Training * Reduce Probability of Saturation
* Reduce Cross-beat dispatchin9. ~ Decrease Patrol Intervals
Proceed
!
I
I
!I
i
!
I
i
U;
~
.~ Q)
s..... E Q)
~ :J +-' E
"'0
0 .-
~ Q) +-'
+-' "'C
I m Q)
i 0> +-'
.- m
-
- ..c
0 0>
0 -
s..... C ..0
+-' ~ 0
CO ~ ~
C- o 0
en en
(]) Q) Q)
+-' +-'
C) ~ ~
c c
CO .- .-
~ ~
s.....
(]) II II
~ ~ 0
~ ~
. .
C)
C r ,
-- ,,-...,
..c ~
I .
U .
.
~ .
+-' --- .
.
co r , c
0
a. --
a +"'"
en ~ 0 CO
E
-- \0 N
0 --
"-- +"'" "...........
-/' en
I · ~I Q) a
CO s::: L- ~
Q) ~
Q) -
I a.
..c E "'--'"
I --
~ en
en
'-- -/' CO
en
N ...
0 L-
a 0 0
l-
t) ~ \0
an Police Deputm
Average Patrol Hour
-Mu = Minutes of unobligated time
-Me = Minutes of obligated time
-Me = Mx + Mi
-Mx = Minutes of cross-beat
dispatching
-Mi = Minutes of obligated time spent
inside the beat
Average Patrol Hour
-For this study of the Bozeman Police
Department, all numbers are based
on a selected Mo value of:
-3D Minutes of obligated
time per hour per officer
Exponential Effect of Mx
Mo
Actual Mx
Estimated Mx
5
10
15
20
- ---------------~_.-.--
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
------------------ -- ....
60
60
0.42
1.67
~_ - __ _u_ _____ .__" _ _~
3.75
6.66
- --------------
10.39
14.92
. - -- -- - .
20.19
26.08
----- --- -_.------ --- -
32.42
- ~ - -- - ----- "----- ---- -- - - . ~ .- -
38.88
- - - ----- -- ---. - ----. --~--,~-~--~- --~ - - .-. ~
44.98
-- -------- -.
50.00
~. _ ~ _ _ .___ ___ ~ __ . ~_ .~T__ _n' ~___~_ _~
50.00
0.42
1.67
-" -- ------------- ---
3.75
6.67
10.42
15.00
20.42
-- -- --- --------------------
26.67
33.75
41.67
-- -.- ._~ ----------.
50.42
60.00
60.00
Based on an Mo value of 30 min/hr and six beats with one unit per beat.
Exponential Effect of Mx
Crossbeat Dispatching With Variable Mo
60.00 ,
55.00
50.00
45.00
40.00 '
35.00 ,
30.00 :
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00 '
0.00
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 60
Minutes of Obligated Time Per Hour
Based on an Me value of 30 min/hr and six beats with one unit per beat.
Why include unobligated time?
~ Reduce officer burnout ~ Maintain beat integrity
* Incident Follow-up * Reduce Response Times
* Community Oriented Policing * Improve Officer Safety
- Problem Oriented Policing f Improve Citizen Safety
~ Spontaneous Training * Reduce Probabilitv of Saturation
* Reduce Cross-beat dispatchin9. ft Decrease Patrol Intervals
Proceed
Probability of Saturation
-The probability that when the next call for
service comes into the dispatch center, there will
be no units available to answer that call
immediately.
Probability of Saturation
(CR X SR)N N
Ps= N! x NS(CRxSR) x Po
where Po equals..........
p ==
o
1
[CR X SR]k + (N x [CR X SR]N)
K! N! x (N S [CR x SR])
Probability of Saturation
N PaS
1 225.3%
2 119.3%
3 56.9%
4 24.2%
5 9.1%
6 3.0%
7 0.9%
8 0.2%
9 0.1%
10 0.0%
11 0.0%
12 0.0%
13 0.0%
14 0.0%
15 0.0%
250.0
-
~
o
--
c
~ 1 87.S
co
'-
::J
+-'
co
en
'I-
o
>.
+-'
125.0
..c
co
..c
e
a..
62.5
an Police Dep
Probability of Saturation
o
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 IS
Number of units fielded
Based on 5 units fielded, an average of 2 calls per hour, and an average service time of 1.23 hours per call.
.~ z-= "_, ~-, ,
'~~tiozeman Police Departm
- - =_ _ _ _ _~ _ _, <_L 'h." _'_0_' - u _~_ _"u,<__ __ _____ ._u__. ~ ~ ,_ ... .
Why include unobligated time?
f Reduce officer burnout f Maintain beat integrity
* Incident Follow-up . Reduce Response Times
~ Community Oriented Policing . Improve Officer Safety
--
* Problem Oriented Policing . Improve Citizen Safety
* Spontaneous Training * Reduce Probability of Saturation
* Reduce Cross-beat dispatching .- Decrease Patrol Intervals
Proceed
an Police Departm .-
Patrol Interval
-The average time a stranded motorist will have
to wait for an officer to come by while on random
patrol on unobligated time.
-The value depends on:
- the street miles in the jurisdiction,
- the average patrol speed,
~ the number of units fielded,
~ the current Mu value.
II
~
rJ:l
~
~ .~
~
0 ;::::s
.~
~ ~
CO C,) 0
.~
Q.. "'C =+t::
2: rJ:l '-"
.~
GJ ~ ><
Q Q) ~ w
..
......, ~
8 c .~ ~ 0
rJ:l ~ \.0
~
~ .
., filii! .~ ..
~ 0 ~ ><
~ L.. ~ ~
+-' ~ "'C
co ~ Q)
; ~
~ Q)
a... r./J ~
r./J
~
0
~
~
cj
~
'-"
Units Fielded (hours) (days) (gained hrs)
1 30.00 1.25
2 15.00 0.63 15.00
3 10.00 0.42 5.00
4 7.50 0.31 2.50
5 6.00 0.25 1.50
6 5.00 0.21 1.00
7 4.29 0.18 0.71
8 3.75 0.16 0.54
9 3.33 0.14 0.42
10 3.00 0.13 0.33
1 1 2.73 0.11 0.27
12 2.50 0.10 0.23
13 2.31 0.10 0.19
14 2.14 0.09 0.16
15 2.00 0.08 0.14
Based on 300 miles, an average patrol speed of 20 mph, and an average Mu value of 30 min/hour/officer.
&
o
8
.. fIIIII
,.....
i.
~
co
C
Q)
+-'
C
o
s....
+-'
co
a...
....
~
IE
0
I:::
~
0
..c
-
c:
111 E
- a
M
... -
0
- Q)
::]
,.. co
- >
:::) I
rI :2'
- Q)
Cl
e:!
- Q)
"'C >
0 co
Q) c:
- "'C co
Q) 'U
G\o q:: c:
CIJ co
:t::: ..c
CD c: a.
:J E
..... a
,.... 0 C'\I
.... '0
Q)
\0 ..c 'U
E Q)
Q)
:J a.
'" Z UJ
e
-
.... co
a.
Q)
,.. Cl
e:!
Q)
>
N co
c:
co
- UJ
~
0 "E
a
a
M
c:
0
'U
Q)
UJ
co
CO
~
o
,.,
.,.
.
N
r4
o
.
..".
an
.
......
-
SJn04 U! IBl\JalUllOJlBd
an Police Departl:q
~~'h ~ - --'" ~-. - - --,.,_ < ~ _- __" .._. ....--......_ T
Patrol Interval
Mu
(hours)
33.94
16.97
11.31
8.49
6.79
5.66
4.85
4.24
3.77
3.39
3.09
2.83
(days)
1.41
0.71
0.47
0.35
0.28
0.24
0.20
0.18
0.16
0.14
0.13
0.12
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
(gained hrs)
16.97
5.66
2.83
1.70
1.13
.81
.61
.47
.38
.31
.26
Based on 300 miles, an average patrol speed of 20 mph, and 5.3 units fielded per shift.
an Police Dep
Patrol Interval
35.00
CJ)
'-
::J
0 26.25
...c:
c
co
~ 17.50
Q)
......
c
0 8.75
'-
......
co
c...
5 10 15 20 2S 30 35 40 4S SO 5S 60
Mu Value
Based on 300 miles, an average patrol speed of 20 mph, and 5.3 units fielded per shift.
Why include unobligated time?
* Reduce officer burnout * Maintain beat integrity
* Incident Follow-up f' Reduce Response Times
tf Community Oriented Policing it Improve Officer Safety
* Problem Oriented Policing f Improve Citizen Safety
* Spontaneous Training * Reduce Probabilitv of Saturation
~ Reduce Cross-beat dispatching !' Decrease Patrol Intervals
Proceed
Performance Factor
it Bozeman has chosen an Mo value of 30 mins
- Performance Factor = 60/Mo = 60/30 = 2.00
fi In order to achieve an Mo value of 30 minutes
per hour, the obligated time for each year must
be multiplied by 2.00.
man Police Departm';,:,
Annual Obligated Workload
___ __~_?gq_2 _~_. J~ _ _ 2 ~~~ ~ _> _ _ _ ___?Q 1_~__n ___~~~?_6~ ~__ _
2003 24589 2016 39965
~ _.._--~ -_. .~ ~__~_.____ _~_"_h_~ ___ _ _ ~__. ___~_~_ ~_~_. _ __~~_._ <_____ __ __~ ._~____~._"__~_. ~. _ ~ T__ ~_ ~_ ___~._._ __ _ ..
2004 26765 2017 41207
-~~_ ~~ _.~~__~~~_____._ _~__._~____~~_____~ ~~~T_~ .___ __ __. _. ~~___~,_~~_. ____ __ ___
2005 29166 2018 42349
_~_ ~~-~._~_.--___ ~_ __~_~~__~__ __ _ _ _ _ ~ __ ~ ..__ .~.. -. _ .~___._._ _~ _~'.L . ___ _~.~ ___~___ _~.~_"~"~_~._ . ._____.~._.. ,_..
2006 26591 2019 43651
~~~~~____._ _..,__ .__~~. ~.__~ __T_ ~~~____~~~_.__._~~~
2007 29035 2020 44911
-----------~- ~--~~~. ._-~~----~
2008 30336 2021 46157
~~~_~ ~--~~~ ~~~_.~ ~~~~~_~_~.___A~_~_'~
2009 31567 2022 47388
~____T~.~. ~~__ ~_.__~_~__~_.r_~.. h..~
2010 32365 2023 48643
_._~- -_._._~~ ~~~______..__~~~_~A__._~~_~__~__~___~___ __.~
2011 33479 2024 49911
~------~~- ~y--_. ~~-..-~~~~~~~ ~~---~~-~~~ --~~-~-_...<~~~
2012 35239 2025 51151
.~-,~~---~.~~ ~-~ - ~--..- .------~--~~.~ ~~-~~-~~-~-~~_.~-..
2013 36182 2026 52399
.~_~_~~~_~.. .~_~_~__~_u.~ ~~ _~_ ~.,____.,_~_~_~~~_.~.~~ _..__________ _~__~__~~_~~__~__~-~~_ ~
2014 37406 2027 53653
Annual Total Workload
2002 48730
2003 49179
~____.___~~_~__~._.~ ~__~_a. _~.~<.~_~ __ ~__...._~_.~ _"_~~
2004 53530
L___~ _,_~. _ __ _~~~~_~~ _.~__~__~_~__ _ ~- ._- -~__~~~_~~
2005 58332
~ -~- ~~~ ~ _._-.--~ -~~-~-~---~._~~-.~-
2006 53182
~~_~~T___~~ ~._ ~__._______~~_~U_ _~. _ _~_~___ _~~.__~__
2007 58070
~_~~__~4__.__n. ___..~__~__._.~ ~ ~ _ ._____~~
2008 60672
~.. .. "_h ~ ~~ ____ .__~~ ,. ~__._.~ ..~_ ~._ .U.~______ ~~~-_~___~__~__~~_,_ ~_____~~~~__. -- - ,~---
2009 63134
~ _ ~~_~~~_~T___~____ _________..__~_~~~~~~_~ ~
2010 64730
~~~~---~._---~~~-.~~ ~~~._--_._._~-- -~-~-~~
2011 66958
--~~ ~---~ ~. ~~-~~--~--- ~-~y-- -~-y------ -
2012 70478
~_~__~~_____~.__ _._____" ~_ ___ _h _~_. _~~ ~ ._~~_ _ __ __ _ .~-...
2013 72364
__v_..~. _'_~_~~ _~ _~ .~~_~ ~_ ~-___,.~__~ .~__~~~~~_~~__..~. _~~_~_~ "~___a.~
2014 74812
2015 77274
~~_.._--~--~-----.--.---- --~~ ~~~ - ~-~~-~- _..-.
2016 79930
-~. -- -~ ~ - ~- - - --~-~~._~-~-- -- _,_-~~---~'~-~.-~-----~~-. -~ --~-"-~~-~--'-'-
2017 82414
~--_.~--~------~------~- -~- ~- -, ~ -.~ --
2018 84698
_ _ ___ __~n ._ ~~ _~_ _ . __~~~A~._,__ _._ -.
2019 87302
__ ~____ _'~~T__ _._~__ _~. ___~ __.______~ _._______________~_~._______
2020 89822
- - --~~~~--~- ----_._--~ ~~~_.~~-
2021 92314
- ~ ~ ~--~~- ~~ ..-~._~-----~._- ----~~--~~-~-~~-~~
2022 94776
_ ._ "__ ._____ _~A~_~~____~__. '"_~~"_. .,._=_ _~_~_~__~__ __.____.." ~_ _ _~
2023 97286
~~~~~___~ ~~~~_~_1 _._~
2024 99822
_. .'" ~ _ ,_ ~. _~ __ ~ ._~.. -v' . ~ ___ _ _._ ~_.._.~___ ~_ _.~__. .~_~~_..__~
2025 102302
. _~_'_' .~_______~ __~_.___~.__~__ T _ ~ ~ ~
2026 104798
~~~ --~~-~ ~---- - ~-~-~--~. -~-~-~-~--~-~-~-,.~-- ~-
2027 107306
159 hours
per day
10 hr
shift length
58,070 hrs/y~ 159 hrs/day
365 days/yr
159 hrs/day _ .
1 0 hrs/officer 15.9 officers/day
Therefore, BPD will need to field an average of 16 officers
per day in 2007.
. eman Police Departm,~ .... ~
Shift Relief Factor
-The shift relief factor is the number of officers
required to cover one shift position every day of
the year.
-This must account for:
~ Regularly Scheduled Days Off
~ Benefit Days Off
~ Non-Patrol Days
an Police Dep
~..-~-----------~..- ;.--, ~. --~ -- -- --~-- _ ___.oc -.--. ~.. _ ~ ~h-' -__---. - _0 _"0 ,_ _. _ _ ~__._ _._ _ - ~,_ _ _ __= .
Regularly Scheduled Days Off
eBPD patrol officers work four 1 O-hour shifts per
week.
f Average Work Week of 40 hrs
~ 156.43 regularly scheduled days off per year
Benefit Days Off
-The following are annual averages for benefit
leave for the BPD Patrol Division:
~ 9.51 days of compensatory leave
. 1.56 days of family leave
, .34 days of personal leave
f; 6.64 days of sick leave
~ 13.99 days of vacation leave
· Average benefit days off per year: 32.04 days
an Police Departrn;'-;
Non-Patrol Days
-The following are annual averages for non-
patrol days for the BPD Patrol Division:
~ .45 days of administrative leave
~ .72 days of court leave
~ 5.62 days of light duty
~ 22.11 days of training
· Average non-patrol days per year: 28.90 days
an Police Dep
Average Time Off Patrol
156.43
1 564.3
32.04
320.40
28.90
289.00
217.37
2173.7
an Police Departnt( ~~..
Shift Relief Factor
365 days x 1 0 hrs/day
(365 days x 10 hrs/day) - 2173.7 hrs
3650 hrs
3650 hrs - 2173.7 hrs
3650 hrs _
1476.3 hrs - 2.472
For each officer that must be fielded per day, the BPD
needs 2.472 officers on the total patrol staff.
an Police Dep
Total Staff Size for Patrol
Total Staff Size = Officers fielded per day x Shift Relief Factor
Total Staff Size for 2007 = 15.9 officers x 2.472
Total Staff Size for 2007 = 39.30 or 39 Officers
an Police Departm
c-. ~. ,. -'__, __.__.~ T
Forecasted Patrol Needs
Currently Authorized - 2007 33 2017 56
Current Actual Need - 2007 39 2018 57
2008 41 2019 59
2009 43 2020 61
2010 44 2021 63
2011 45 2022 64
2012 48 2023 66
2013 49 2024 68
2014 51 2025 69
2015 52 2026 71
2016 54 2027 73