HomeMy WebLinkAboutLocation of New Police-Courts and City Aquatics Facilities, optimized Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Chris Kukulski, City Manager
Chuck Winn, Assistant City Manager
Ron Price, Chief of Police
Mitch Overton, Directors of Parks and Recreation
SUBJECT: Location of New Police/Courts and City Aquatics Facilities
MEETING DATE: August 12, 2013
AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Action
RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the City Manager to take the steps necessary to complete a land exchange between the Montana Department of Transportation and the City of Bozeman for the purposes of providing locations for the City’s new Police and Municipal Courts building and a new
aquatics center.
SUGGESTED MOTION: Having reviewed the reports, considered public comment and staff analysis, I move to direct the City Manager to take the appropriate action necessary to complete a land exchange between the Montana Department of Transportation and City of Bozeman for the purposes of
providing locations for the Police and Municipal Courts building and a new aquatics center.
BACKGROUND: Police and Courts Facility: Since May 2010, the City has been actively involved with Gallatin
County in planning for the design and construction of a joint law enforcement building housing the
Gallatin County Sheriff and the Bozeman Police Department. Following the County’s decision to
withdraw its commitment to this project, the City began negotiating all aspects of acquiring property on the Law and Justice Center (L&J) campus to construct a city-only Police and Courts Facility. These negotiations failed to yield an agreement and resulted in months of delays and approximately $40,000
in costs to the City (see Attachment A). When it became evident the City and County would not be
able to reconcile their differences and reach a deal that worked for both parties, we began searching for
other suitable locations for these critical public safety functions. The Sheriff/Police co-location option provided the value of the Law and Justice Center site. Having
exhausted the option of co-location, the property should be evaluated solely on its suitability as a
building site and location. The Law and Justice Campus location has significant restrictions that make
it a less suitable location based on size, traffic patterns, public frontage, and secure parking options. The following criteria were used in the evaluation of potential locations for the Police and Courts
Facility:
• Access to major transportation routes;
• 3.5 to 4.5 acres in a prominent and visible location and easily accessible;
• Access to City infrastructure (roads, water, sewer)
103
• Access to public transportation; and
• Suitable zoning and reasonable distance from residential developments. Several properties were identified on or near Oak Street that met these minimum criteria with asking
prices at, or below $1M. The City Commission approved $1M in the FY14 budget for the purchase of
property and related site improvements for a new police/courts Facility.
Aquatics Facility: The 2012 Bozeman Recreation and Aquatics Facilities Feasibility Study recommend the City build a new aquatic facility to meet the current and future needs of the citizens of
Bozeman at a site yet to be determined. A site location team consisting of the Chair of the Recreation
and Parks Advisory Board, the Economic Development Director, the City Engineer, the Parks and
Recreation Director and a project planner from the Community Development Department met with potential partners and reviewed potential sites throughout the City.
The following criteria were used to evaluate potential locations for a new Aquatics Center:
• Community-wide access (not tucked into a neighborhood);
• Visibility along major routes;
• Approximately five acres for facility and parking;
• Existing Infrastructure (water, sewer, streets);
• Suitable zoning
The site location team found that the MDT site scored highest in the evaluation criteria and recommends the site for the location of the Aquatics Center.
Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) Land Exchange: The City has been aware that
MDT is interested in a possible land exchange with the City for property in the North Park development. In the 2013 legislative session, MDT was funded for the construction of a new Bozeman Division Maintenance Facility. Their present location at 907 North Rouse Avenue is insufficient for
their current and future needs and does not provide optimal access to the road network they maintain.
As such, MDT desires to locate its facilities outside of the urban area on property that provides
improved access for their large equipment and has adequate space for future expansion. The City owns property on the Water Reclamation Facility (WRF) site that meets their needs and is no longer used for waste water treatment activities. MDT has requested a land exchange of approximately 12
acres from the City for their approximately eight acres on Rouse Ave. Montana law requires the
properties exchanged be of like value; to determine the number of acres the City would need to provide in exchange for MDT’s approximately eight acres we, along with MDT, have initiated an appraisal process to begin determining values for the purposes of negotiation. A need hearing and adoption of
an ordinance authorizing the exchange agreement before the Commission would be necessary to
authorize the exchange.
While we have not completed an in-depth site analysis, initial site planning shows the MDT site would work well for both the police/courts building and a new aquatics facility.
As MDT’s property on Rouse Avenue appears to contain more acreage than is required for a police
and court facility, we began looking at co-location of other pending City facilities. Primary among those is the development of a new aquatics center as discussed above. We recommend the Commission consider acquiring the MDT property to locate both the police and court facilities and a new aquatics
center on the MDT property. Advantages of co-location of the police and court and aquatics center at
the MDT site include:
• Reuse and infill redevelopment of industrial-type property in the City’s entryway corridor;
104
• Location of the Bozeman Police Department nearer to other City operations including the
department’s vehicle maintenance facility, Bozeman City Hall, Fire Station Headquarters,
Bozeman Public Library, and City Shops provides for a corridor of community services;
• Primary infrastructure is currently in place (water, sewer, transportation);
• Proximity to the urban core via major transportation corridor, supporting Commission goal
number 4, enhancing Downtown development opportunities;
• The site and proposed uses are supported by the City’s Growth Policy;
• Appropriate zoning (PLI) already in place where proposed uses are permitted and encouraged;
• Access to major transportation routes (Rouse, Oak, Tamarack);
• Location is served by Streamline Bus Routes;
• The potential to improve property values for adjacent areas;
• Adjacency to the County Fairgrounds and their planned amenities (e.g. possible ice climbing tower and outdoor concert venue, second sheet of ice, etc.);
• Location of the Police Department next to a recreational amenity helps to foster relationships
between the community and the police. The City has a similar situation with Fire Station 3, the
911 Center, and the Regional Park which has yielded many positive interactions between local
government and citizens;
• Shared spaces and infrastructure to include community rooms and public parking that would be duplicated if the locations were separated;
• Major transportation improvements planned for the area include reconstruction of Rouse
Avenue and the installation of a bike/pedestrian path along Oak between 7th and Rouse;
• Construction of an aquatics facility on the site locates a major recreational amenity near the
north east neighborhood, an area currently underserved by recreational facilities;
• Adjacency to the Senior Center for both access to aquatic amenities and programs and Law and Justice Center;
• Adjacency of aquatic center to Boy’s and Girl’s Club
UNRESOLVED ISSUES: The City and MDT are presently in discussions to determine the specific requirements of a land exchange. These include, but are not limited to:
• The identification and consolidation of MDT’s holdings on Rouse;
• The specific location and size of WRF property suitable for MDT’s needs;
• The determination of value of each party’s parcels through appraisal and negotiations;
• Processes for completion of the potential trade (i.e. a boundary line relocation on the WRF
facility and a possible amended plat and tract aggregation on the MDT property);
• The City Commission’s determination that the WRF property is no longer needed for city business or that the public interest compels the exchange;
• Adoption of an ordinance authorizing the City Manager to sign an agreement with MDT for
the exchange; and
• Closing of the land exchange transaction.
NEXT STEPS: Should the Commission adopt the motion as stated it is our intention to take the
following actions; the City will expeditiously pursue the land exchange with MDT and enter into a
memorandum of understanding that outlines the specific steps needed to complete the transaction. At the time the unresolved issues have been addressed, the City would begin working with its architect retained for the police and court facility to finalize the design.
ALTERNATIVES: Although the MDT site is our first choice for the co-location of the police/courts
and pool, both facilities could be located elsewhere. We have had preliminary conversations with the owner of property next to Rose Park (27th and Oak) for the purposes of building the police/courts building with the pool planned for adjacent construction on Rose Park property. Other suitable
105
locations for the police and courts facility include property currently for sale near 15th and Oak Street.
FISCAL EFFECTS: The City’s FY2014 budget includes $1M for the purchase of property and site improvements for the construction of a new Police and Municipal Courts facility and $125,000 for
initial design and engineering of the new aquatics center. The construction of the facilities would be
financed through the sale of bonds approved in a city election to be held either next spring or during
the 2014 general election.
Attachments: Attachment A Bozeman Police/Courts Action Summary
Attachment B Aerial Map of Site Attachment C MDT Letter
Attachment D Site Plan
Report compiled on: 7-31-2013
106
1 | Page
Bozeman Police/Courts Facility – Partnership with Gallatin County and Future Direction
May 31, 2013
Previous Efforts:
• 2004 – Partnered with Gallatin County for a facility and space needs assessment. Final report
presented in 2006
• 2004 – City Commission Goals included the completion of a facility and staffing plan.
• 2006 October – City hired CGL to conduct at 20 year best practices space and facilities needs
assessment specific to BPD
• 2007 January – Amended scope of services to include Municipal Court Facility plan. Report
presented to City Commission in June 2007
• 2008 – City contracted with Dowling Sandholm to identify options to construct a standalone courts
and police building on the L&J site.
Current Effort:
• 2010 May – City contributed $20,000 to the latest Master Planning effort. Draft Report presented to
City Commission in March 2011.
• 2011 April – Work session with City Commission to discuss our options for future direction
• 2011 August – County adopted MOU Improvements to L&J Campus Co-Location of Law Enforcement
and Courts
• 2012 August – County Creates the Law and Justice Center Task Force to “review various options
associated with the development of new law enforcement facilities on the L&J Campus”.
Membership includes Brian Gootkin, Ryan Jackson, Robert Lee, Earl Mathers, Ron Price, Don Siefert
and Chuck Winn
• 2012 August 28-30, City and County participated in Program Verification and Concept Workshop #1.
100% City funded
• 2012 September – Entered into contract with ThinkOne for architectural design
• 2012 October – L&J Task Force issues its report;
o Estimated cost savings in joint design and construction of common spaces are $2M each
o Long-term shared personnel expenses (reception, evidence) projected to be significant and ongoing
o Recommendation to County to budget $200K to add to the $100K they have budgeted to proceed
with a joint design with the City on a joint Law Enforcement Building
• 2012 November – County Commission voted to budget $200K to add to the $100K they currently
had budgeted to fund joint design with the City
• 2012 December 10/11 – City and County participate in Program Verification and Concept Workshop
#2 to continue the joint design process (cost shared with County)
• 2013 January – County abruptly changes course and advises the City they will not be proceeding
with any joint design or construction.
• Communication relating to agreement to build after County’s January decision to withdraw:
o January 14 letter to County requesting property and permission to build
o January 29 letter from County with the 9 conditions
o February 5 letter requesting clarification on various aspect of 9 conditions
o February 14 Joint meeting with County officials
o February 26 letter with 8 additional issues
o March 22 email to County Administrator requesting clarification and specific conditions from the 8
additional issues in their February 26 letter.
107
2 | Page
o March 25 email from County Administrator indicating a response had been drafted and sent to
County Commissioners for review
o March 26 – received copy of appraisal from the County setting the value of 3 acres at $1.4M
o March 29 email from County Administrator indicating we’d receive a response next week (April 1)
o April 16 email from County Administrator saying there are still reservations but that he feels confident
we should receive a response after an April 18 meeting between White and Taylor
o April 26 phone call from CM to County Administrator requesting a written response to our March 26
request for a response
o May 13 Letter to County with a package offer worth $1.092M and revision of our site plan to
accommodate County’s request for access to DC
o May 14 letter from County Commission rejecting offer, reiterating $1.4M purchase price, all necessary
site improvement costs including relocation of re-entry facility and requiring additional deed
restrictions on the property purchased.
Current Situation Summary:
• We have been working with Gallatin County since May 2010 to secure a location and obtain
approval for this project
• We have been clear in communicating the City’s interests of control of property we occupy and
our desire to take advantage of the efficiencies of a joint project;
o A landlord/tenant rental relationship may not be in the City’s best interests (both financially and
operationally)
o Interest in ensuring the future facility needs of our PD and Muni-Courts are met at the site
• At the County’s request in August 2012 we paused our process to allow the County to join us in a
joint project
• In late December 2012 after working jointly for several months the County determined it would
not be a joint project after all
• The County’s conditions and requirements for our location on the L&J site have changed several
times and we are experiencing difficulties obtaining specifics from the County
• Since we hired our architect, we have spent nearly $20,000 on direct efforts to reach agreement
with the County on a location and site configuration
• We have been working to determine an ownership model since the drafting of the MOU in 2010
• The County continues to add restrictions and conditions that inflate the cost of constructing on
the L&J campus and reduce the value of the property they want us to purchase, at or above
market rate
• We currently pay the County approximately $170,000/year for operations and maintenance of
our courts and police in the L&J building (~$145 for PD and Court 1 and ~$25k for rent for Court
2)
Recommendations:
• Make a decision that it is not in the City’s best interests, either operationally or financially, to
remain on the L&J Site for the reasons described above
• Identify alternative sites for the City Police and Municipal Courts facility
o Obtain budget approval to purchase a suitable alternative site
108
3 | Page
Site Analysis – Law and Justice Center
Law and Justice Center Site (~3 acre parcel $1.4M – County Appraisal)
Pros Cons
Adjacent to Sheriff, Jail and Court facilities Limited expansion opportunities – our facility is
designed in a corner
Access roads constructed Would require subdivision for a sale
Allows 2 ingress and egress (College and 19th) Any changes to our facility or operations
require County Commission approval
Utilization of shared parking and common
areas
Poor soils require pile system foundation –
increased construction costs
Sale price is more easily wrapped into bond
issue approval
Pre-release center would need to be relocated
(at our cost) before construction could begin
Cost of property appears to be high (comps?)
Alternative Site Analysis:
Site Location #1 (7 acre parcel 8 lots. $1.2M)
Pros Cons
Oak Street public frontage – good public
visibility
Limited expansion opportunities
Access roads constructed Would require rezoning from R-4 to B-2 or PLI
Allows 2+ ingress and egress Adjacent to residential lots
Could potentially purchase ½ of property ~3.5
acres (save money)
Depth of property (long narrow lot) limits
building setbacks
Better soils than L&J site Sewer main and park easement bisects
property north to south (~3.5 acres each side)
Difficult to make an offer without funding
available
Site Location #2 (3.48 acre parcel 4 lots. $950,000)
Pros Cons
On 15th with signalized intersection at Oak Limited expansion opportunities
Access roads constructed Depth of property (long narrow lot) limits
building setbacks
Allows 2+ ingress and egress Not directly on a major thoroughfare
Variety of layout options – square parcel
Difficult to make an offer without funding
available
Site would allow for separate building for
program and utility spaces if desired (evidence,
SRT, etc.)
Currently zoned commercial
On-street parking on 4 sides
Better soils than L&J site
109
4 | Page
Operational and Cost Impacts
The following provides an evaluation of specific needs associated with a stand-alone municipal
police/courts building. We believe this analysis holds true whether we remain on the L&J Campus or
relocate off-site. These estimates do not include additional costs relative to building maintenance,
janitorial or landscaping upkeep, but rather focused on daily operational needs impacted by operating
out of a separate building. The two major areas involving a fiscal impact involve Evidence and Records
Management.
Evidence Financial Impact: $32,000/annually
Our current operation is a shared evidence function, with a primary evidence storage vault that contains
seized evidence from this department, Gallatin County Sheriff’s Office and the Missouri River Drug Task
Force. We have one Evidence Technician that serves all agencies, providing duties focused on gathering
and processing evidence, as well as control and management of that evidence. This position is a
Bozeman city employee, with Gallatin County paying for half of the position salary. No matter the
location of a stand-alone building, the city will need to assume the 50% that is currently being offset.
This amount, based on current salary, fringe, and a growth of 5% to account for any potential salary
increases between now and the time of the need is $32,000. It should be noted that our current staffing
of the evidence function does not meet the needs of the department or community. Expanded funding
will be necessary in the very near future regardless of the status of the police facility.
Records Management Financial Impact: $96,000/annually
The records management function of both Gallatin County Sheriff’s Office and the Bozeman Police
Department is done via personnel and funding from Gallatin County 9-1-1. There are a total of 9 clerks
and 1 supervisor to handle these duties. Their duties include front desk reception for citizens in need of
services, with staffing for that position done from 07:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. 7 days per week. Discovery
requests, police records entry, arrest warrant entry, public record requests, entry of protection orders
and completing concealed weapon permit applications are just some of the functions performed by
these clerks. When the City moves to a separate building, these functions will still be needed at each
facility. After construction of the new police station is completed, we would propose that the work site
of one-half of the records staff be moved to the new facility. Presently, the Bozeman Police Department
is the largest user of records services and we believe that by augmenting the current clerks from 10 to
12 and assigning 6 to each location, the records management functions of City and County law
enforcement will be addressed. This assumes staffing for the same public accessibility (i.e. time
periods). Based on current salary, fringe, and a growth of 5% to account for any potential salary
increases is $48,000/position or $96,000.
Other operational impacts
There are some additional operational impacts that are relatively minor. The main impact of locating
the Bozeman Justice Center off campus involves that of transportation of prisoners for Municipal Court
related reasons. Currently, if a prisoner is needed for a court hearing, or if a judge orders incarceration
after an appearance or trial, an officer is summoned and the prisoner is walked to or from the Detention
Center. This happens about 4 times per week. Some minor fuel and extra officer to transport a prisoner
110
5 | Page
will be an impact, albeit relatively minor and with little impact on overall costs or operations. Some
secondary impacts involve joint meetings with members of Detectives, Special Response Team, and
other interdisciplinary meetings may involve some travel, either to this agency or to others traveling to
the Bozeman Justice Center location. Again, these are relatively minor operational or financial impacts.
Summary
The increased costs of a non-shared law enforcement building come in the personnel needs addressed
above. These costs will be identical regardless of the eventual site of the building. The impacts to
operational functions and costs are most affected through the decision of law enforcement co-location.
Once the building becomes a municipal only function, the decision between building sites has little
impact.
111
N 7TH AVE N ROUSE AVE INTERST
A
T
E
9
0
H
W
Y
W OAK ST L ST N 5TH AVE IDA AVE W PEACH ST
E TAMARACK ST
E O
A
K
S
T
N BLACK AVE W TAMARACK ST
E PEACH ST N WALLACE AVE PLUM AVE N TRACY AVE N GRAND AVE FR
O
N
T
S
T
N BOZEMAN AVE EVERGRE
E
N
D
R
N 3RD AVE GOLD AVE BA
X
T
E
R
L
N
BOND ST N MONTANA AVE W SHORT ST
PE
A
R
S
T
N CHURCH AVE N 4TH AVE HEMLOCK ST
BRYANT ST PERKINS PL E ASPEN ST N 6TH AVE N 8TH AVE DURSTON RD
W JUNIPER ST E JUNIPER ST
E BIRCH ST
IVAN AVE N 7TH AVE N 3RD AVE INTERSTA
T
E
9
0
H
W
Y
E PEACH ST
Current MDT Location
500 0 500250 Feet
This map was created by the City of Bozeman GIS Department on 7/25/13 and is intended for planning purposes only.
¯
112
E TAMARACK ST N ROUSE AVE E OAK ST N BLACK AVE E JUNIPER ST
E BIRCH ST N MONTANA AVE 100 0 10050Feet
Current MDT Location
500 0 500250 Feet
This map was created by the City of Bozeman GIS Department on 7/25/13 and is intended for planning purposes only.
¯
113
N 7TH AVE N ROUSE AVE INTERST
A
T
E
9
0
H
W
Y
W OAK ST L ST N 5TH AVE IDA AVE W PEACH ST
E TAMARACK ST
E O
A
K
S
T
N BLACK AVE W TAMARACK ST
E PEACH ST N WALLACE AVE PLUM AVE N TRACY AVE N GRAND AVE FR
O
N
T
S
T
N BOZEMAN AVE EVERGRE
E
N
D
R
N 3RD AVE GOLD AVE BA
X
T
E
R
L
N
BOND ST
W SHORT ST N MONTANA AVE PE
A
R
S
T
N CHURCH AVE N 4TH AVE HEMLOCK ST
BRYANT ST
E ASPEN ST PERKINS PL N 6TH AVE N 8TH AVE DURSTON RD
W JUNIPER ST E JUNIPER ST
E BIRCH ST
IVAN AVE N 7TH AVE N 3RD AVE INTERSTAT
E
9
0
H
W
Y
E PEACH ST
Current MDT Location
Legend
Land Use (1/1/13)
Agriculture
Mixed Use
Restaurant\Bar
Commercial Retail Sales, Services, Banks
Hotel\Motel
Commercial Auto
Administrative\Professional
Light Manufacturing
Golf Course
Park or Open Space
Conservation Easement
Church
Public Facility
School\Educational Facility
Single-Household Residential
Duplex\Triplex Residential
Multi-Household Residential
Mobile Home\Mobile Park
Right-of-Way
Undeveloped
Vacant
500 0 500250 Feet
This map was created by the City of Bozeman GIS Department on 7/25/13 and is intended for planning purposes only.
¯
114
115
CITY OF BOZEMAN
POLICE AND MUNICIPAL COURTS & INDOOR | OUTDOOR FAMILY AQUATIC FACILITY
SITE FEASABILITY STUDY
BOZEMAN, MONTANA
MUNICIPAL COMPLEX STATISTICS
- Total Site Area: 361,080 Square Feet (8.289 Acres)
- Police and Municipal Courts: ~ 35,000 Square Feet
- Family Aquatic Center: ~ 60,000 Square Feet
- Zone District: PLI (Public Lands and Institutions)
- Adjacent Zones: M-1, HMU
- Access Point Setbacks: 200’ Min. From Intersections.
- Total Shared Parking Stalls: 260 (Including 8 ADA)
- Total Secure Parking: 86 (56 Uncovered | 30 Covered)
- Four (4) Exits For Police Entry/Exit On Site.
- Aquatic Center Oriented To Maintain Best Sun Exposure,
Yet Provide Areas Of Natural Shade.
- Aquatic Center On South End Of Complex For Close
Access To North Bozeman Neighborhoods.
- Pedestrian Corridor Through Parking Area For Safe
Access To Either Municipal Facility.
116