HomeMy WebLinkAbout4-2-07-1_46-155_Special Presentation_ Police and Municipal Court Needs Assessment and Facilities Plan
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Mark Tymrak, Director of Public Safety-Police
SUBJECT: Presentation: Resource Analysis – Findings & Projections
Presentation: Police & Municipal Court Needs Assessment & Facilities Plan
MEETING DATE: Special Presentation Workshop: Monday, April 2, 2007.
RECOMMENDATION: The City Commission reviews and asks questions of Timothy
Freesmeyer of Etico Solutions, Inc. in his presentation of the Police Resource Analysis Findings and
Projections. The City Commission can move to formerly adopt the IACP (International Association
of Chief’s of Police) methodology and direct staff to utilize this methodology as an annual staffing
review process. The City Commission reviews and asks questions of Anders Kaufmann of Carter
Goble Lee in his presentation of the Police and Municipal Court Needs Assessment and Facilities
Plan. The City Commission can move to formerly adopt the CGL Needs Assessment and Facility
Plan. The City Commission can direct staff to proceed with identifying a site for a new Police and
Municipal Court Facility as well as identifying and securing a predictable and sustainable funding
source for implementing the facility and staffing plans.
BACKGROUND: At the request of commission, staff has worked closely with consultant
Freesmeyer to prepare a 20 year staffing plan using a nationally recognized methodology taught and
endorsed by the International Association of Chiefs of Police. Staff has worked closely with Carter
Goble Lee Associates to develop a 20 year best practices review of space needs and analysis and site
needs and evaluation for a new police and court facility.
UNRESOLVED ISSUES: Sustained funding source; facility site location.
FISCAL EFFECTS: There are no fiscal effects associated with adopting the IACP Staffing
Analysis methodology or the Carter Goble Lee Facility Needs Assessment. Significant fiscal impacts
will be incurred implementing the recommendations contained within the plans including hiring
additional personnel and the construction of the new police facility.
ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Commission.
CONTACT: Please feel free to email Mark Tymrak at mtymrak@bozeman.net if you have any
questions.
APPROVED BY: Mark Tymrak, Director of Public Safety-Police
Chris Kukulski, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS: Resource Analysis Findings & Projections report – Etico Solutions
Bozeman Police and Municipal Court Needs Assessment and
Facilities Plan – Carter Goble Lee
46
Bozeman Police and Municipal CourtBozeman Police and Municipal CourtNeeds Assessment and Facilities PlanNeeds Assessment and Facilities PlanPRESENTED TO:PRESENTED TO:Bozeman Police DepartmentBozeman Police DepartmentCity of BozemanCity of BozemanPRESENTED BY:PRESENTED BY:Carter Goble Associates, Inc.Carter Goble Associates, Inc.A Carter Goble Lee CompanyA Carter Goble Lee CompanyPresentation of Final ReportPresentation of Final Report47
22Specific Tasks:Specific Tasks:Assess the current factors impacting future growth of the BozemaAssess the current factors impacting future growth of the Bozeman n Police Department, Bozeman Prosecutor and Municipal CourtPolice Department, Bozeman Prosecutor and Municipal CourtProject future staff levels and associated space needsProject future staff levels and associated space needsPrepare a space program based on the 20Prepare a space program based on the 20--year projected needsyear projected needsIdentify and evaluate property for potential site development foIdentify and evaluate property for potential site development for the r the Police, Bozeman Prosecutor and Municipal Court functionsPolice, Bozeman Prosecutor and Municipal Court functionsDevelop a project budget for the new facility Develop a project budget for the new facility IntroductionIntroductionCGL retained to update the Bozeman Police, Bozeman Prosecutor anCGL retained to update the Bozeman Police, Bozeman Prosecutor and Municipal d Municipal Court portion of the Court portion of the Gallatin County 20Gallatin County 20--year Criminal Justice System Space and year Criminal Justice System Space and Facilities Needs Assessment Facilities Needs Assessment prepared by CGL in November 2004prepared by CGL in November 200448
33Interview City Manager, Police Department staff, and Municipal CInterview City Manager, Police Department staff, and Municipal Court ourt staff to compare and observe work and operating conditionsstaff to compare and observe work and operating conditionsCollect historical data/workload indicators (service population,Collect historical data/workload indicators (service population,calls calls for service, arrests, court filings, etc.)for service, arrests, court filings, etc.)Identify existing space deficienciesIdentify existing space deficienciesProject future personnel needs for Police and Municipal CourtProject future personnel needs for Police and Municipal Court––Update models from 2004 Master PlanUpdate models from 2004 Master Plan––Compare Police results to IACP staffing studyCompare Police results to IACP staffing studyProject future space needs based on projected personnel and Project future space needs based on projected personnel and recommended space standards from detailed space program through recommended space standards from detailed space program through 20262026Compute parking needs based on various ratios of spaces per Compute parking needs based on various ratios of spaces per occupied square feetoccupied square feetNeeds Assessment UpdateNeeds Assessment UpdateObjectivesObjectives49
44Daily demand for public services (police, fire, and emergency caDaily demand for public services (police, fire, and emergency calls) lls) varies by day and time of day due to the actual number of residevaries by day and time of day due to the actual number of residents, nts, work and shopping commuters, seasonal and tourist population, anwork and shopping commuters, seasonal and tourist population, and d student populationstudent populationService population for Bozeman difficult to determineService population for Bozeman difficult to determine––Population projections for the area have historically been Population projections for the area have historically been ““off the markoff the mark””––Statistically valid information on commuters, seasonal populatioStatistically valid information on commuters, seasonal population, etc., to n, etc., to and from the area not easy to trackand from the area not easy to trackHistoric and projected service population levels prepared for thHistoric and projected service population levels prepared for the e Bozeman Police Department based on Bozeman Police Department based on ––Review of statistical data readily available from Federal and StReview of statistical data readily available from Federal and State ate resources resources ––Local insights on planned housing and infrastructure growth (i.eLocal insights on planned housing and infrastructure growth (i.e., ., planned water and wastewater infrastructure) planned water and wastewater infrastructure) Note: analysis does not include any further expansion in the CitNote: analysis does not include any further expansion in the Cityy’’s s limits (9.7 square miles in 1990 to 18.4 as of January 2007)limits (9.7 square miles in 1990 to 18.4 as of January 2007)Needs Assessment UpdateNeeds Assessment UpdateService PopulationService Population50
55Needs Assessment UpdateNeeds Assessment UpdateService Population GraphService Population Graph110,38367,76543,901020,00040,00060,00080,000100,000120,0001996199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008200920102011201220132014201520162017201820192020202120222023202420252026Police Service PopWater Treatment Design Pop51
66Needs Assessment UpdateNeeds Assessment UpdateLaw Enforcement StatisticsLaw Enforcement StatisticsPolice Staff RatesPolice Staff Rates––Between 2001 and 2006, service population increased nearly 29% aBetween 2001 and 2006, service population increased nearly 29% and nd authorized police staff increased almost 20%, while authorized police staff increased almost 20%, while actual hiredactual hiredpolice staff police staff increased only 9% increased only 9% ––Actual staff per 1,000 service population decreased over the perActual staff per 1,000 service population decreased over the period nearly iod nearly 15% from 1.45 to 1.23, while service population increased nearly15% from 1.45 to 1.23, while service population increased nearly29% 29% ––Both authorized and actual staff levels below industry standard Both authorized and actual staff levels below industry standard ratio of 1.5 ratio of 1.5 staff to 1,000 service population since 2002staff to 1,000 service population since 2002Service CallsService Calls––Responding to calls for service significant workload indicatorResponding to calls for service significant workload indicator––Between 2001 and 2006, total service calls increased over 36% frBetween 2001 and 2006, total service calls increased over 36% from nearly om nearly 29,691 to 40,403 at a rate higher than the area's service popula29,691 to 40,403 at a rate higher than the area's service population growth tion growth of nearly 29%of nearly 29%52
77Needs Assessment UpdateNeeds Assessment UpdateLaw Enforcement StatisticsLaw Enforcement StatisticsCrime RateCrime Rate––Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Crime Index compiled nationwide foUniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Crime Index compiled nationwide for the r the US Department of Justice and includes selected higher level offeUS Department of Justice and includes selected higher level offenses used nses used to gauge fluctuations in the volume and rate of reported crimeto gauge fluctuations in the volume and rate of reported crime––Between 2001 and 2006, Crime Index fluctuated with an overall deBetween 2001 and 2006, Crime Index fluctuated with an overall decline of cline of 10.5%10.5%––Significant decline since 2004, consistent with national trendsSignificant decline since 2004, consistent with national trends––Factors that impact crime reduction: number of law enforcement sFactors that impact crime reduction: number of law enforcement staff, taff, innovative policing strategies, and use of incarceration innovative policing strategies, and use of incarceration Arrest RateArrest Rate––Between 2001 and 2006, arrests fluctuated with an overall increaBetween 2001 and 2006, arrests fluctuated with an overall increase of 15%se of 15%53
88Needs Assessment UpdateNeeds Assessment UpdateMunicipal Court StatisticsMunicipal Court StatisticsMunicipal Court FilingsMunicipal Court Filings––Court filings an indicator of demand for judicial servicesCourt filings an indicator of demand for judicial services––Between 2001 and 2006, filings fluctuated with an overall increaBetween 2001 and 2006, filings fluctuated with an overall increase 11.6%se 11.6%Parking CitationsParking Citations––Court clerks process nearly 4,000 parking citations per yearCourt clerks process nearly 4,000 parking citations per year54
99CGL Update results in an average annual increase of 8.8%, IACP ACGL Update results in an average annual increase of 8.8%, IACP Analysis nalysis results in an average increase of 6.3%results in an average increase of 6.3%IACP Analysis results in higher projections for 2011 and 2016; lIACP Analysis results in higher projections for 2011 and 2016; logical as the ogical as the IACP methodology more detailed by staff type and accounts betterIACP methodology more detailed by staff type and accounts betterfor past for past staffing deficiencies in relation to level and response of servistaffing deficiencies in relation to level and response of serviceceCGL Update methodology results in higher estimates for 2021 and CGL Update methodology results in higher estimates for 2021 and 2026; 2026; logical as the methodology accounts better for projected servicelogical as the methodology accounts better for projected servicepopulationpopulationExisting2006 2011 2016 2021 2026CGL Update58.0 76.8 98.1 125.2 159.7 175.4%IACP Analysis58.0 83.4 100.0 116.7 131.5 126.7%Average58.0 80.1 99.0 120.9 145.6 151.1%Source: Compiled by CGL, December 2006 and updated February 2007.ItemProjected% Chg.Needs Assessment UpdateNeeds Assessment UpdatePolice Personnel NeedsPolice Personnel Needs55
1010Needs Assessment UpdateNeeds Assessment UpdateComparison of Police Personnel NeedsComparison of Police Personnel NeedsRecommend average of approaches as planning target to account foRecommend average of approaches as planning target to account for past staff r past staff deficiencies in first ten years and high projected service populdeficiencies in first ten years and high projected service population growth in second ten ation growth in second ten yearsyearsNeed to review and adjust formulas and approach annually to reflNeed to review and adjust formulas and approach annually to reflect local changes in ect local changes in crime, population, development growth, etc. crime, population, development growth, etc. 159.780.199.0120.9145.676.898.1125.258.083.4100.0116.7131.555.075.095.0115.0135.0155.020062011201620212026CGL UpdateIACP AnalysisAverage56
1111Needs Assessment UpdateNeeds Assessment UpdateMunicipal Court Personnel NeedsMunicipal Court Personnel NeedsCGL Update results in an average annual increase of 5.4%CGL Update results in an average annual increase of 5.4%Existing2006 2011 2016 2021 2026CGL Update6.0 7.3 8.7 10.4 12.5 108.8%Source: CGL, February 2007.ItemProjected% Chg.57
1212Needs Assessment UpdateNeeds Assessment UpdateSummarySummarySpace expressed as DGSF and grossing factors needed to determineSpace expressed as DGSF and grossing factors needed to determinebuilding size (BGSF)building size (BGSF)Police Department and Municipal Court to require a major increasPolice Department and Municipal Court to require a major increase in space and parking e in space and parking requirements due to past deficits and to meet demands of a growirequirements due to past deficits and to meet demands of a growing communityng communityExisting2006 2011 2016 2021 2026PoliceExisting DGSF4,311FTE Personnel Projection58.0 80.1 99.0 120.9 145.6DGSF Space Projection14,790 20,423 25,257 30,83537,100Parking Spaces 1:250 DGSF59 82 101 123 148Parking Spaces 1:169 DGSF88 121 149 182 220Parking Spaces 1:200 DGSF74 102 126 154 186Municipal CourtExisting DGSF2,368FTE Personnel Projection6.0 7.3 8.7 10.4 12.5DGSF Space Projection5,070 6,164 7,357 8,80710,500Parking Spaces 1:250 DGSF20 25 29 35 42Parking Spaces 1:169 DGSF30 36 44 52 62Parking Spaces 1:200 DGSF25 31 37 44 53Source: CGL, December 2006 and updated February 2007.ProjectedItem58
1313Space ProgramSpace ProgramObjectivesObjectivesOrganize spaces into functional and operational componentsOrganize spaces into functional and operational componentsDetermine types and numbers of spaces based on projected 20Determine types and numbers of spaces based on projected 20--year year needsneedsDefine square footage for each spaceDefine square footage for each spaceRecommend physical relationships of spaces to each otherRecommend physical relationships of spaces to each otherEstablish grossing factors to account for circulation, wall thicEstablish grossing factors to account for circulation, wall thicknesses, knesses, mechanical equipment areas, and stairs and elevatorsmechanical equipment areas, and stairs and elevators59
1414Space ProgramSpace ProgramOrganizationOrganizationAdministrationAdministrationPatrolPatrolInvestigationsInvestigationsSupport ServicesSupport ServicesMunicipal CourtMunicipal Court60
1515Space ProgramSpace ProgramSummary of 20Summary of 20--Year Space ProgramYear Space Program# ComponentNet SF DGSF BGSF1.000 ADMINISTRATION1.100 Reception and Waiting1,555 2,099 2,414 1.200 Executive and Administration1,246 1,682 1,934 1.300 Training and Fitness4,033 5,041 5,797 1.400 Shared General Spaces2,714 3,664 4,213 1.500 Bozeman Prosecutor1,784 2,408 2,770 Total Administration11,332 14,894 17,128 2.000 PATROL DIVISION2.100 Patrol Division6,992 9,439 10,855 Total Patrol Division6,992 9,439 10,855 3.000 INVESTIGATIONS3.100 Detectives5,554 7,498 8,623 Total Investigations5,554 7,498 8,623 4.000 SUPPORT SERVICES4.100 Administration1,930 2,606 2,996 4.200 Evidence1,990 2,687 3,089 Total Support Services3,920 5,292 6,086 5.000 MUNICIPAL COURT5.100 Courtrooms5,075 6,344 7,295 5.200 Judicial Suites890 1,202 1,382 5.300 Municipal Court Support2,250 3,038 3,493 Total Municipal Court8,215 10,583 12,170 TOTAL SQUARE FEET - MINIMUM SIZE FACILITY36,013 47,706 54,862 Source: Carter Goble Associates, December 2006; Rev. March 2007Bozeman Police Department Architectural Space Plan Summary61
1616Space ProgramSpace ProgramOverall Space AdjacencyOverall Space Adjacency4.000SUPPORT1.200EXECUTIVEANDADMIN.1.000RECEPTIONANDWAITING1.400SHAREDGENERAL SPACE1.300TRAINING ANDFITNESSPublic Entry2.000PATROL DIVISION3.000INVESTIGATIONSExterior Staff and Vehicle Access5.000MUNICIPAL COURT62
1717Space ProgramSpace ProgramProject CostProject CostTotal Estimated Square Footage (DGSF)Cost/ SF Construction Cost1.000 ADMINISTRATION14,894 155$ 2,308,613$ 2.000 PATROL DIVISION9,439 180$ 1,699,056$ 3.000 INVESTIGATIONS7,498 180$ 1,349,622$ 4.000 SUPPORT SERVICES5,292 175$ 926,100$ 5.000 MUNICIPAL COURT10,583 185$ 1,957,809$ 47,706 173$ 8,241,199$ 7,156 110$ 787,151$ 240 Parking Spaces 78,000 4$ 312,000$ 467,018$ 54,862 179$ 9,807,368$ 2,942,210$ 12,749,578$ NOTE: All costs are projected to April 2007 with no escalation to mid-point construction.Cost ComponentFACILITY CONSTRUCTION COSTSSubtotal All AreasPROJECT COST ADDITIVES*Includes A/E Design and Program Management Fees; Testing; Furniture, Fixtures and Equipment (FF&E); Construction and Design ContingencyTOTAL PROJECT COST (excludes inflation to future construction mid-point and land purchase)Subtotal Construction CostBuilding Gross @ 15%Other Project Costs* @ 30% of ConstructionSite Preparation @ 5% of ConstructionSource: Carter Goble Associates, December 2006 - Revised March 200763
1818Site OptionsSite OptionsIdentification of Candidate SitesIdentification of Candidate SitesDetermine minimum need for five (5) acresDetermine minimum need for five (5) acresReview list of available governmentReview list of available government--owned propertiesowned propertiesIdentify three sites feasible for Police Headquarters and MuniciIdentify three sites feasible for Police Headquarters and Municipal pal Court facilityCourt facility––Site 1 Site 1 ––Mandeville FarmMandeville Farm(28.4 Acres)(28.4 Acres)––Site 2 Site 2 ––L&J SiteL&J Site(5.0 Acres)(5.0 Acres)––Site 3 Site 3 ––City City ShopsShopsSite Site (4.19 Acres)(4.19 Acres)64
1919Site OptionsSite OptionsSite 1 Site 1 ––Mandeville FarmMandeville FarmSite 1 Site 1 ––Mandeville FarmMandeville FarmCity OwnedCity OwnedAmple size for future expansion Ample size for future expansion and parkingand parkingSeparation from nearby land usesSeparation from nearby land usesAdvantagesAdvantagesEasements across propertyEasements across propertyAccess from secondary roadAccess from secondary roadProximity to railroadProximity to railroadDisadvantagesDisadvantages65
2020Site OptionsSite OptionsSite 2 Site 2 ––L&J SiteL&J SiteSite 2 Site 2 ––L&J SiteL&J SiteAdjacent to existing L&J facilitiesAdjacent to existing L&J facilitiesPublic transportation availablePublic transportation availableAdvantagesAdvantagesAccess from congested streetsAccess from congested streetsSurrounded by residential/ Surrounded by residential/ commercial neighborhoodscommercial neighborhoodsMinimum expansion potentialMinimum expansion potentialDisadvantagesDisadvantages66
2121Site OptionsSite OptionsSite 3 Site 3 ––City Shops SiteCity Shops SiteSite 3 Site 3 ––City Shops SiteCity Shops SiteCityCity--owned propertyowned propertyGood street accessGood street accessAdvantagesAdvantagesSize barely adequateSize barely adequateNo expansion potentialNo expansion potentialPossiblePossiblepresence of contaminantspresence of contaminantsDisadvantagesDisadvantages67
2222Site OptionsSite OptionsScoring Process & ResultsScoring Process & ResultsRate 26 variables underRate 26 variables under––Location/AccessLocation/Access––Physical Site ConstraintsPhysical Site Constraints––UtilitiesUtilities––Availability and Legal IssuesAvailability and Legal IssuesRating SystemRating System––Excellent = 8Excellent = 8––Acceptable = 4Acceptable = 4––Poor = 2Poor = 2––Unacceptable = 0Unacceptable = 0Raw Score for each siteRaw Score for each siteWeighted Scoring Weighted Scoring ––Highly Important = 5Highly Important = 5––Important = 3Important = 3––Little Importance = 1Little Importance = 1Sites123CriteriaTOTAL WEIGHTED SCORESSource: Carter Goble Lee, March 2007L&JCity Shops482 546Mand. Farm52668
2323END OF PRESENTATIONEND OF PRESENTATION69
Carter Goble Lee
BOZEMAN POLICE AND MUNICIPAL COURT
NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND FACILITIES PLAN
XxFINAL REPORTxx
March 2007
Printed March 8, 2007
70
BOZEMAN POLICE AND MUNICIPAL COURT NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND FACILITIES PLAN
Carter Goble Lee
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.........................................................................................2-20
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
71
xxCHAPTER ONExx
INTRODUCTION
72
BOZEMAN POLICE AND MUNICIPAL COURT NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND FACILITIES PLAN
CHAPTER ONE - INTRODUCTION
1-1
Carter Goble Lee
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
Anders Kaufmann, Senior Associate
Chloe Jaco, Senior Associate
City of Bozeman
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
73
xxCHAPTER TWOxx
NEEDS ASSESSMENT UPDATE
74
BOZEMAN POLICE AND MUNICIPAL COURT NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND FACILITIES PLAN
CHAPTER TWO – NEEDS ASSESSMENT
2-1
Carter Goble Lee
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 were also presented in the profiles. As
part of the current planning effort to prepare a space program for the Bozeman Police and Municipal Court, the
Consultant gathered updated staff and workload indicator data since the completion of the 2004 Master Plan and
obtained 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 (i.e., 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).
75
BOZEMAN POLICE AND MUNICIPAL COURT NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND FACILITIES PLAN
CHAPTER TWO – NEEDS ASSESSMENT
2-2
Carter Goble Lee
Year Population % Chg.
1996 28,224 ----
1997 29,093 3.1%
1998 29,960 3.0%
1999 30,723 2.5%
2000 31,399 2.2%
2001 32,359 3.1%
2002 33,653 4.0%
2003 35,235 4.7%
2004 37,596 6.7%
2005 40,002 6.4%
2006 41,602 4.0%
4.7%
Table 2-1
Historic Service Population
Average Annual Growth
Source: City of Bozeman Planning Department, State
of Montana, and US Census; November 2006 and
updated February 2007.
Year Population % Chg.
2011 53,096 5.5%
2016 67,765 4.3%
2021 86,488 4.3%
2026 110,383 4.3%
Table 2-2
Projected Service Population
Source: City of Bozeman Planning Department, State
of Montana, and US Census; November 2006 and
updated February 2007.
Figure 2-1
Historic & Projected Service Population: Police & Water Treatment Facilities
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,0001996199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008200920102011201220132014201520162017201820192020202120222023202420252026
Police Service Pop
Water Treatment Design Pop
76
BOZEMAN POLICE AND MUNICIPAL COURT NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND FACILITIES PLAN
CHAPTER TWO – NEEDS ASSESSMENT
2-3
Carter Goble Lee
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 planning is 1.5 staff to 1,000 projected 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.
77
BOZEMAN POLICE AND MUNICIPAL COURT NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND FACILITIES PLAN
CHAPTER TWO – NEEDS ASSESSMENT
2-4
Carter Goble Lee
Table 2-3
Historic Police Staff
Item 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
2001-06
% Chg
Service Population 32,359 33,653 35,235 37,596 40,002 41,602 28.6%
Total Police Staff (Authorized)48.50 51.50 52.00 52.00 56.00 58.00 19.6%
Total Police Staff (Actually Hired)46.90 51.20 48.00 47.82 51.00 51.08 8.9%
Police Staff Detail:
Command Staff (Authorized)5.00 5.00 5.00 4.00 5.00 5.00 0.0%
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 39.00 41.00 43.00 22.9%
Patrol Officers and Detectives (Actually Hired)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-ACO Officers (Actually Hired)4.00 4.00 4.00 3.50 4.00 3.25 -18.8%
DARE 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.0%
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 Authorized Staff/1,000 Pop 1.50 1.53 1.48 1.38 1.40 1.39 -7.0%
Total Actual Staff/1,000 Pop 1.45 1.52 1.36 1.27 1.27 1.23 -15.3%
Source: Bozeman Police, November 2006 and updated January 2007.
Police Staffing Notes:
2001 - 4 sworn officers attended Law Enforcement Academy and initial training (6 months each)
2002 - 4 sworn 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 sworn 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 sworn 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
78
BOZEMAN POLICE AND MUNICIPAL COURT NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND FACILITIES PLAN
CHAPTER TWO – NEEDS ASSESSMENT
2-5
Carter Goble Lee
Figure 2-2
Police Staff Rates
1.53
1.48
1.45
1.36
1.50
1.38
1.391.40
1.23
1.271.27
1.00
1.10
1.20
1.30
1.40
1.50
1.60
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Total Authorized Staff/1,000 Pop
Total Actual Staff/1,000 Pop
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%.
79
BOZEMAN POLICE AND MUNICIPAL COURT NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND FACILITIES PLAN
CHAPTER TWO – NEEDS ASSESSMENT
2-6
Carter Goble Lee
Table 2-4
Historic Service Calls
Item 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
2001-06
% Chg
Service Population 32,359 33,653 35,235 37,596 40,002 41,602 28.6%
Command Staff (Actually Hired)5.0 5.0 4.8 4.0 5.0 4.8 -5.0%
Patrol Officers and Detectives (Actually Hired)33.4 37.7 34.3 35.3 37.0 38.8 16.3%
Parking-ACO Officers (Actually Hired)4.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 4.0 3.3 -18.8%
DARE 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0%
Total Service Calls 29,691 35,526 33,888 35,912 38,758 40,403 36.1%
Service Calls (Parking-ACO)2,616 2,880 3,532 3,322 3,780 3,714 42.0%
Service Calls (Command-DARE)470 578 282 342 897 1,042 121.7%
Service Calls (Patrol and Detectives)26,605 32,068 30,074 32,248 34,081 35,647 34.0%
Total Calls/1000 population 917.55 1,055.66 961.77 955.21 968.90 971.18 5.8%
Calls/Parking-ACO Officers (Actual)654.00 720.00 883.00 949.14 945.00 1,142.77 74.7%
Calls/Command and DARE (Actual)78.33 96.33 49.04 68.40 149.50 181.22 131.3%
Calls/Patrol Officers and Detectives (Actual)796.56 850.61 878.07 913.02 921.11 918.03 15.2%
Source: Bozeman Police, November 2006 and updated January 2007.
Figure 2-3
Service Call Rates
917.55
1,055.66
971.18
654.00
720.00
945.00
1,142.77
796.56
850.61
918.03
961.77 955.21
883.00
913.02
600.00
700.00
800.00
900.00
1,000.00
1,100.00
1,200.00
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Total Calls/1000 population
Calls/Parking-ACO Officers (Actual)
Calls/Patrol Officers and Detectives (Actual)
80
BOZEMAN POLICE AND MUNICIPAL COURT NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND FACILITIES PLAN
CHAPTER TWO – NEEDS ASSESSMENT
2-7
Carter Goble Lee
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
Item 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
2001-06
% Chg
Service Population 32,359 33,653 35,235 37,596 40,002 41,602 28.6%
Index Crime Rate per 100,000 5,623 6,491 5,117 6,745 5,614 5,034 -10.5%
Patrol Officers and Detectives (Actual)33.4 37.7 34.3 35.3 37.0 38.8 16.3%
Crime/1,000 pop 173.77 192.88 145.22 179.41 140.34 121.00 -19.2%
Crime/Patrol Officers and Detectives (Actual)168.35 172.18 149.40 190.97 151.73 129.64 -9.9%
Source: Bozeman Police, November 2006 and updated January 2007.
Figure 2-4
Crime Rates
173.77
192.88
145.22
140.34
121.00
172.18
190.97
151.73
179.41
168.35
129.64
90.00
110.00
130.00
150.00
170.00
190.00
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Crime/1,000 pop
Crime/Patrol Officers and Detectives (Actual)
81
BOZEMAN POLICE AND MUNICIPAL COURT NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND FACILITIES PLAN
CHAPTER TWO – NEEDS ASSESSMENT
2-8
Carter Goble Lee
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
Item 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
2001-06
% Chg
Service Population 32,359 33,653 35,235 37,596 40,002 41,602 28.6%
Patrol Officers and Detectives (Actual)33.4 37.7 34.3 35.3 37.0 38.8 16.3%
Arrest 2,194 2,879 2,418 2,310 2,130 2,533 15.5%
Arrest / 1,000 Pop 67.80 85.55 68.62 61.44 53.25 60.89 -10.2%Arrest / Hired Patrol Officers and Detectives 65.69 76.37 70.60 65.40 57.57 65.23 -0.7%
Source: Bozeman Police, November 2006 and updated January 2007.
Figure 2-5
Arrest Rates
67.80
85.55
68.62
61.44
53.25
60.89
65.69
76.37
70.60
65.40
57.57
65.23
45.00
50.00
55.00
60.00
65.00
70.00
75.00
80.00
85.00
90.00
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Arrest / 1,000 Pop
Arrest / Hired Patrol Officers and Detectives
82
BOZEMAN POLICE AND MUNICIPAL COURT NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND FACILITIES PLAN
CHAPTER TWO – NEEDS ASSESSMENT
2-9
Carter Goble Lee
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.
Table 2-7
Historic Municipal Filings
Item 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
2001-06
% Chg
Service Population 32,359 33,653 35,235 37,596 40,002 41,602 28.6%
Municipal Court Staff 5.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 20.0%
Filings 10,925 13,261 10,132 10,528 9,471 12,192 11.6%
Filings / 1,000 Pop 337.62 394.05 287.55 280.03 236.76 293.06 -13.2%Filings / Court Staff 2,185.00 2,652.20 2,026.40 1,754.67 1,578.50 2,032.00 -7.0%
Source: Bozeman Municipal Court; January 2007.
83
BOZEMAN POLICE AND MUNICIPAL COURT NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND FACILITIES PLAN
CHAPTER TWO – NEEDS ASSESSMENT
2-10
Carter Goble Lee
Figure 2-6
Municipal Court Filings Rates
2,185.00
2,652.20
2,026.40
1,754.67
1,578.50
2,032.00
293.06236.76280.03287.55
394.05337.62
0.00
500.00
1,000.00
1,500.00
2,000.00
2,500.00
3,000.00
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Filings / 1,000 Pop
Filings / Court Staff
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.
84
BOZEMAN POLICE AND MUNICIPAL COURT NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND FACILITIES PLAN
CHAPTER TWO – NEEDS ASSESSMENT
2-11
Carter Goble Lee
Updated Projections
Overview of Existing Space
Police Headquarters: The Bozeman Police Headquarters is co-located with the Gallatin County Sheriff’s 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 that 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.
85
BOZEMAN POLICE AND MUNICIPAL COURT NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND FACILITIES PLAN
CHAPTER TWO – NEEDS ASSESSMENT
2-12
Carter Goble Lee
Figure 2-7
Police Organization Chart (as of January 2007)
Director of Public
Safety – Police
(Chief)
Patrol Division
Supervisor
(Deputy Chief)
Investigation
Division Supervisor
(Deputy Chief)
Dare Officer (1)
Animal Control (1.25)
Parking Officers (3.75)
Civilian assistant (1)
General Detectives (5)
Drug Detectives (2)
School Resource Officers (2)
Administrative Secretaries (2)
Evidence Technician (1)
Lieutenants
(2)
Patrol
Sergeants
2-day shift
Detective
Sergeant
Patrol
Sergeants
2-mid shift
Patrol
Sergeants
2-night
shift
Patrol
Officers
(9)
Patrol
Officers
(9)
Patrol
Officers
(9)
86
BOZEMAN POLICE AND MUNICIPAL COURT NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND FACILITIES PLAN
CHAPTER TWO – NEEDS ASSESSMENT
2-13
Carter Goble Lee
Municipal 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
ClerkClerk Restitution
OfficerClerk
87
BOZEMAN POLICE AND MUNICIPAL COURT NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND FACILITIES PLAN
CHAPTER TWO – NEEDS ASSESSMENT
2-14
Carter Goble Lee
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 in accordance with procedures established by the International Association of Chiefs of
Police (IACP). As part of the needs assessment update, the following models used in the 2004 Master Plan were
updated and the results were then compared to the results of the recent IACP analysis.
CGL Update: Historic staff data for the Bozeman Police Department was updated since completion of the 2004 Master
Plan and the projections expanded to the year 2026. Using historic authorized staff 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 1.5 Staff to 1,000 Projected Service Population - applies the law enforcement industry standard
of 1.5 staff to 1,000 service population to future service population estimates.
Model 5 Ratio of Staff to Projected Crime Rate - applies the existing, high, average, and low historic ratio of
authorized staff to 1,000 crime rate from 2001 to 2006 to a projected crime rate 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 (i.e. constrained historical growth, change in management philosophy, future grant funding, planned
department and/or staff changes due to the impact of technologies or change in workflow, etc.). A summary of the
Consultant’s recommended future personnel needs is presented in Table 2-8.
Based on a review of the models, the average of Model 4 Industry Ratio of 1.5 Staff to 1,000 Service Population and
Model 5 Existing Ratio of Staff to 1,000 Crime Rate to Projected Crime Rate was selected as a planning target to: (1)
account for best practice through application of the industry standard; and (2) reflect existing policy on authorized staff
totals.
88
BOZEMAN POLICE AND MUNICIPAL COURT NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND FACILITIES PLAN
CHAPTER TWO – NEEDS ASSESSMENT
2-15
Carter Goble Lee
The CGL Update results in a total authorized staffing need of about 77 positions by 2011 and nearly 160 positions by
2026. Detail on historic and projected ratios is provided in Appendix 1.
Note that a comprehensive staffing analysis was not completed and that the staff projections are for space planning
purposes only. As with all projections, the methodology should be reviewed and updated annually to reflect current
policy and trends.
Table 2-8
CGL Update Police Personnel Needs
2011 2016 2021 2026
1) Historical Number Change (+1.9 Per Year) 67.5 77.0 86.5 96.0
2) Linear Regression 66.1 74.8 83.5 92.2
3) Existing Staff to Projected Service Population 74.0 94.5 120.6 153.9
4) Ratio 1.5 Staff to 1,000 Service Population 79.6 101.6 129.7 165.6
5) Ratio Staff to 1,000 Crime Rate
a. Existing (2006) = 11.5 74.0 94.5 120.6 153.9
b. High (2001 to 2006) = 11.5 74.0 94.5 120.6 153.9
c. Average (2001 to 2006) = 9.3 59.9 76.4 97.6 124.5
d. Low (2001 to 2006) = 7.7 49.5 63.2 80.7 103.0
Recommended Staff
Average 4 & 5a 76.8 98.1 125.2 159.7
Source: CGL, December 2006 and updated February 2007.
Projection YearStaff Projection Models
IACP Analysis: As previously noted, the Bozeman Police Department conducted a comprehensive staffing analysis in
accordance with procedures established by the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) in November of 2006
(and updated March 2007). The analysis is based on 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 the level of required service (i.e., 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. IACP methodology is most accurate when analysis is done annually
on the previous year’s data and then is used to forecast staffing needs for budget purposes.
With assistance from the IACP patrol staff analysis expert, historical data for 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 (detectives, SRO/DARE officer, command staff, animal control, parking, and support staff) based on
local and other comparable agency experience. The results are summarized in Table 2-9. The IACP analysis results in a
projection of 83 positions for 2011 and nearly 132 for 2026.
89
BOZEMAN POLICE AND MUNICIPAL COURT NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND FACILITIES PLAN
CHAPTER TWO – NEEDS ASSESSMENT
2-16
Carter Goble Lee
Table 2-9
IACP Police Staffing Analysis
Existing
2006 2011 2016 2021 2026
Patrol Officers 33.0 45.0 54.0 63.0 71.0 115.2%
Detectives 8.0 11.3 13.5 15.8 17.8 121.9%
SRO/DARE Officers 3.0 4.5 5.4 6.3 7.1 136.7%
Command Staff 5.0 6.9 8.3 9.7 10.9 118.4%
Animal Control 1.3 2.5 3.0 3.5 3.9 215.2%
Parking 3.8 5.0 6.0 7.0 7.9 110.4%
Support Staff 4.0 8.2 9.8 11.5 12.9 222.8%
Total 58.0 83.4 100.0 116.7 131.5 126.7%
Source: Bozeman Police, December 2006 and updated February 2007.
ProjectedStaff Type % Chg.
Comparison: A comparison of the results from the CGL Update and the IACP Analysis is presented in Table 2-10 and
Figure 2-8. The CGL Update results in an average annual increase of 8.8%, while the IACP Analysis results in an
average increase of 6.3%. The IACP Analysis results in higher projections for 2011 and 2016. This is logical, as the
IACP Analysis methodology is more detailed by staff type and accounts better for past staffing deficiencies in relation to
level and response of service. Interestingly, the CGL update methodology results in higher estimates for 2021 and 2026.
Table 2-10
Police Personnel Needs Comparison
Existing
2006 2011 2016 2021 2026
CGL Update 58.0 76.8 98.1 125.2 159.7 175.4%
IACP Analysis 58.0 83.4 100.0 116.7 131.5 126.7%
Average 58.0 80.1 99.0 120.9 145.6 151.1%
Source: Compiled by CGL, December 2006 and updated February 2007.
Item Projected % Chg.
90
BOZEMAN POLICE AND MUNICIPAL COURT NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND FACILITIES PLAN
CHAPTER TWO – NEEDS ASSESSMENT
2-17
Carter Goble Lee
Figure 2-8
Comparison of Police Personnel Needs
159.7
80.1
99.0
120.9
145.6
76.8
98.1
125.2
58.0
83.4
100.0
116.7
131.5
55.0
75.0
95.0
115.0
135.0
155.0
2006 2011 2016 2021 2026
CGL Update
IACP Analysis
Average
The Consultant recommends that the average of both approaches be used as a planning target to account for past staff
deficiencies in the first ten years and high projected population growth in the second ten years. As with any projection
model, the formulas and approach should be reviewed and adjusted annually to reflect local changes in crime,
population, development growth, etc.
91
BOZEMAN POLICE AND MUNICIPAL COURT NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND FACILITIES PLAN
CHAPTER TWO – NEEDS ASSESSMENT
2-18
Carter Goble Lee
Municipal 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 2-11.
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.
Table 2-11
CGL Update Municipal Court Personnel Needs
2011 2016 2021 2026
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
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.
Projection YearStaff Projection Models
92
BOZEMAN POLICE AND MUNICIPAL COURT NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND FACILITIES PLAN
CHAPTER TWO – NEEDS ASSESSMENT
2-19
Carter Goble Lee
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 2-12. The 2026 projection is in italics, as this is the planning target for the detailed space program in the following
chapter.
93
BOZEMAN POLICE AND MUNICIPAL COURT NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND FACILITIES PLAN
CHAPTER TWO – NEEDS ASSESSMENT
2-20
Carter Goble Lee
Table 2-12
Summary Space & Parking Needs
Existing
2006 2011 2016 2021 2026
Police
Existing DGSF 4,311
FTE Personnel Projection 58.0 80.1 99.0 120.9 145.6
DGSF Space Projection 14,790 20,423 25,257 30,835 37,100
Parking Spaces 1:250 DGSF 59 82 101 123 148
Parking Spaces 1:169 DGSF 88 121 149 182 220
Parking Spaces 1:200 DGSF 74 102 126 154 186
Municipal Court
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
Parking Spaces 1:200 DGSF 25 31 37 44 53
Source: CGL, December 2006 and updated February 2007.
ProjectedItem
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.
94
xxCHAPTER THREExx
SPACE PROGRAM
95
BOZEMAN POLICE AND MUNICIPAL COURT NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND FACILITIES PLAN
CHAPTER THREE – SPACE PROGRAM
3-1
Carter Goble Lee
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.
96
BOZEMAN POLICE AND MUNICIPAL COURT NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND FACILITIES PLAN
CHAPTER THREE – SPACE PROGRAM
3-2
Carter Goble Lee
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 Chief’s office. Shared general spaces include a work/ 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.
Table 3-1
Administration Space Program
Space Space Persons/Total
Number Space Description Standard Space Quantity NSF Comments
1.000 ADMINISTRATION
1.100 Reception and Waiting
1.101 Entry Vestibule 100 1 1 100 2-pairs double doors
1.102 Public Lobby 500 1 1 500 Serves all facility components, seating for 10-15; metal
detector/security screening equipment
1.103 Police Department Lobby 180 1 1 180 Accessed from Public Lobby; seating for 6-8; carrels for report
preparation
1.104 Receptionist & Front Desk 120 1 1 120 Counter & secure workstation; ballistic glass glazing
1.105 Public Terminals 40 1 3 120 Semi-private workstation w/ computer terminal
1.106 Witness Waiting 120 1 1 120 Separate from public waiting, seating for 6; access to interview
rooms
1.107 Public Toilet 160 1 2 320 Male & female, ADA-compliant
1.108 Janitor's Closet 35 1 1 35
1.109 Interview Room 60 1 1 60
Subtotal Net Area 1,555
Departmental Grossing Factor 35% 544
Total DGSF 2,099
1.200 Executive and Administration
1.201 Public Safety Director/Chief of Police 216 1 1 216 Private office, conference seating for 6; private toilet, closet
1.202 Assistant Chief 160 1 1 160 Private office, guest seating for 3-4, closet
1.203 Administrative Secretary 100 1 3 300
1.204 Computer Room 60 1 1 60 Printer, etc.
1.205 Storage 60 1 1 60 Secure
1.206 Conference Room 450 1 1 450 Administration & media; conference seating for 25
Subtotal Net Area 1,246
Departmental Grossing Factor 35% 436
Total DGSF 1,682
97
BOZEMAN POLICE AND MUNICIPAL COURT NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND FACILITIES PLAN
CHAPTER THREE – SPACE PROGRAM
3-3
Carter Goble Lee
Table 3-1 (continued)
Administration Space Program
Space Space Persons/Total
Number Space Description Standard Space Quantity NSF Comments
1.300 Training and Fitness
1.301 Law Enforcement Classroom 15 80 1 1,200 Simulator, classroom instruction, folding wall for division
1.302 Exercise Room 800 1 1 800 Exercise equipment, mats, defensive tactics training
1.303 Storage 150 1 2 300 Separate rooms for civil defense gear, supplies
1.304 Male Locker Room 6.5 125 1 813 Full-height lockers w/ 2-compartments each
1.305 Female Locker Room 6.5 40 1 260 Full-height lockers w/ 2-compartments each
1.306 Male Showers & Toilets 400 1 1 400 8 showers, 6 toilets, 2 urinals, 6 sinks
1.307 Female Showers & Toilets 260 1 1 260 3 showers, 4 toilets, 4 sinks
Subtotal Net Area 4,033
Departmental Grossing Factor 25% 1,008
Total DGSF 5,041
1.400 Shared General Spaces
1.401 Staff Break Room 450 1 1 450 Counter w/ sink, refrigerator, microwave, vending, accommodate
30
1.402 Staff Toilets 120 1 4 480 Separate male & female, ADA-compliant; locate as required by
code and for best efficiency
1.403 Mail Room 120 1 1 120 Receive & sort mail, individual staff mailboxes
1.404 Work Room 200 1 1 200 Work table, copier, fax, printers, supplies, forms
1.405 Conference Room 450 1 - - Shared by 1.206
1.406 Server Room 150 1 1 150 Secure
1.407 Temporary Holding Cell 50 1 2 100
1.408 Detainee Toilet 50 1 1 50
1.409 Clerical/Records Staff 64 11 1 704 Workstations
1.410 Records Room 400 1 1 400 Secure; high-density storage system
1.411 Storage 60 1 1 60 Secure, safe for received payments
Subtotal Net Area 2,714
Departmental Grossing Factor 35% 950
Total DGSF 3,664
1.500 Bozeman Prosecutor
1.501 Reception/Waiting 120 1 1 120 Accessed from Public Lobby
1.502 Bozeman Prosecutor 216 1 1 216 Senior Prosecutor's private office
1.503 Assistant City Prosecutor 200 1 3 600 Private office
1.504 Support Staff - Paralegal 80 1 3 240 Paralegal area w/ confidentiality separation
1.505 Support Staff - Receptionist 64 1 1 64 Serves as receptionist
1.506 Storage/Work Area 200 1 1 200 Files, copier,fax, shredder, work table, supplies
1.507 Storage - Long Term 200 1 1 200 Case file record storage
1.508 Conference Room 144 1 1 144 Enclosed
Subtotal Net Area 1,784
Departmental Grossing Factor 35% 624
Total DGSF 2,408
TOTAL DGSF FOR ADMINISTRATION 14,894
Building Gross 15% 2,234
TOTAL BGSF FOR ADMINISTRATION 17,128
Source: Carter Goble Associates, December 2006; Rev. March 2007.
98
BOZEMAN POLICE AND MUNICIPAL COURT NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND FACILITIES PLAN
CHAPTER THREE – SPACE PROGRAM
3-4
Carter Goble Lee
Figure 3-1
Administration Space Adjacency
Access
To 1.500
To 5.000
20'15'10'5'0
1.105PublicTerm.40 SF
1.108Jan Clos35 SF
1.102
Lobby
600 SF
1.109
Interv.
60 SF
1.101
Entry
Vestibule
100 SF
1.106
Witness
Waiting
120 SF
1.107
Public Toilet
160 SF
1.105PublicTerm.40 SF
1.105PublicTerm.40 SF
1.104
Recep/
Fr. Desk
120 SF
To 1.100
1.206
Conference Room
450 SF
1.202
Assistant
Chief
160 SF
1.205
Stor.
60 SF
1.204
Comp.
60 SF
1.201
Public Safety Dir/
Chief of Police
200 SF
1.203
Admin.
Secretry.
100 SF
1.103
Police Dept.
Lobby
180 SF
1.107
Public Toilet
160 SF
To 1.200
1.203
Admin.
Secretry.
100 SF
1.203
Admin.
Secretry.
100 SF
99
BOZEMAN POLICE AND MUNICIPAL COURT NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND FACILITIES PLAN
CHAPTER THREE – SPACE PROGRAM
3-5
Carter Goble Lee
Figure 3-1 (continued)
Administration Space Adjacency
20'15'10'5'0
1.301
Law Enforcement
Classroom
1.200 SF
Access Circulation
1.303
Storage
150 SF
1.303
Storage
150 SF
1.302
Exercise Room
800 SF
1.305
Female Locker Room
260 SF
1.307
Female Shower/
Toil.
260 SF
1.306
Male Shower/Toilets
400 SF
1.304
Male Locker Room
813 SF
100
BOZEMAN POLICE AND MUNICIPAL COURT NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND FACILITIES PLAN
CHAPTER THREE – SPACE PROGRAM
3-6
Carter Goble Lee
Figure 3-1 (continued)
Administration Space Adjacency
20'15'10'5'0
1.401
Staff Break Room
450 SF
1.402
Staff
Toilet
120 SF
1.402
Staff
Toilet
120 SF
Access Circulation
1.407
T Hold
Cell
50 SF
1.407
T Hold
Cell
50 SF
1.408
D Toilet
50 SF
1.410
Records Room
400 SF
1.411
Storage60 SF
1.409
Clerical/Records Staff
704 SF
1.404
Work Room
200 SF
1.403
Mail
Room
120 SF
1.406
Server
Room
150 SF
1.402
Staff
Toilet
120 SF
1.402
Staff
Toilet
120 SF
Locate 2 - 1.402 as requiredby code and/or staff
distribution
101
BOZEMAN POLICE AND MUNICIPAL COURT NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND FACILITIES PLAN
CHAPTER THREE – SPACE PROGRAM
3-7
Carter Goble Lee
Figure 3-1 (continued)
Administration Space Adjacency
1.505Support
St-Recep
64 SF
From 1.102
20'15'10'5'0
1.506
Storage/
Work Area
200 SF
1.502
Bozeman
Prosecutor
216 SF
1.508
Conference
Room
144 SF
1.501
Reception/
Waiting
120 SF
1.503
Assistant
City
Prosecutor
200 SF
1.503
Assistant
City
Prosecutor
200 SF
1.503
Assistant
City
Prosecutor
200 SF
1.504
Support
Staff -
Paralegal
240 SF
1.507
Storage -
Long-Term
200 SF
102
BOZEMAN POLICE AND MUNICIPAL COURT NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND FACILITIES PLAN
CHAPTER THREE – SPACE PROGRAM
3-8
Carter Goble Lee
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 K9, 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.
Table -2
Patrol Space Program
Space Space Persons/Total
Number Space Description Standard Space Quantity NSF Comments
2.000 PATROL DIVISION
2.100 Patrol Division
2.101 Supervisor (Deputy Chief or Captain) 160 1 1 160 Private office
2.102 Patrol Lieutenant 140 1 3 420 Private office; includes projected growth
2.103 Patrol Sergeant 75 2 6 900 6 - semi-private offices (12 staff); includes projected growth
2.104 Officer's Workstation 64 4 3 768 Workstation pod for 4 officers, acoustic barriers for private phone
conversations; includes projected growth
2.105 Officer's Storage Cabinet 3 1 60 180 Approx. 2' x 2' cabinet stacked 3 high; includes projected growth
2.106 Support Staff 64 1 6 384 Workstations - clerical, transcriptions
2.107 Interview Room 60 1 4 240
2.108 Computer Room 60 1 1 60 Printer, etc.
2.109 Open Case File Storage 120 1 1 120
2.110 CDU & SRT Staging Area 500 1 1 500 CDU & SRT storage adjacent, requires exterior access
2.111 CDU & SRT Storage 300 1 1 300 May be sub-divided
2.112 General Storage 150 1 1 150 Various equipment & supplies
2.113 Armory 150 1 1 150 Weapons, ammunition, chemical munitions; vault construction
2.114 Bike Patrol Storage 300 1 1 300 Storage for bikes & motors; sized for additional units
2.115 Canine Holding 40 1 2 80 Protected kennels for short-term holding
2.116 Canine Supplies 30 1 1 30
2.117 Patrol Vehicle Parking 300 0.25 30 2,250 Covered parking; area calculated at 25%
Subtotal Net Area 6,992
Departmental Grossing Factor 35% 2,447
TOTAL DGSF FOR PATROL 9,439
Building Gross 15% 1,416
TOTAL BGSF FOR PATROL 10,855
Source: Carter Goble Associates, December 2006; Rev. February 2007
103
BOZEMAN POLICE AND MUNICIPAL COURT NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND FACILITIES PLAN
CHAPTER THREE – SPACE PROGRAM
3-9
Carter Goble Lee
Figure 3-2
Patrol Space Adjacency
20'15'10'5'0
Exterior Access
2.103
Patrol
Sergeant
150 SF
2.108Comp. R
60 SF
2.104
Officer’s Station
768 SF
2.105
Officer’s
Storage
Cabinet
180 SF
2.114
Bike Patrol Storage
300 SF
2.115
Canine
Hold.
80 SF
2.116C. Sup30 SF
2.110
CDU & SRT
Staging Area
500 SF
2.111
CDU & SRT
Storage
300 SF
2.113
Armory
150 SF
2.112
General
Storage
150 SF
2.107Interview
60 SF
2.107Interview
60 SF
2.107Interview
60 SF
2.107Interview
60 SF
2.103
Patrol
Sergeant
150 SF
2.103
Patrol
Sergeant
150 SF
2.103
Patrol
Sergeant
150 SF
2.103
Patrol
Sergeant
150 SF
2.103
Patrol
Sergeant
150 SF
2.102
Patrol
Lieutenant
140 SF
2.102
Patrol
Lieutenant
140 SF
2.102
Patrol
Lieutenant
140 SF
2.101
Supervisor/
Captain
160 SF
2.106
Support Staff
384 SF
2.109
Open C.
File Stor.
120 SF
2.117
Patrol Vehicle Parking
104
BOZEMAN POLICE AND MUNICIPAL COURT NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND FACILITIES PLAN
CHAPTER THREE – SPACE PROGRAM
3-10
Carter Goble Lee
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.
Table 3-3
Investigations Space Program
Space Space Persons/Total
Number Space Description Standard Space Quantity NSF Comments
3.000 INVESTIGATIONS
3.100 Detectives
3.101 Supervisor (Deputy Chief or Captain) 160 1 1 160 Includes projected growth
3.102 Lieutenant 140 1 1 140 Private office; includes projected future growth
3.103 Drug Task Force Office 100 1 4 400 Private office; includes projected future growth
3.104 Detective Sergeant Office 120 1 2 240 Includes projected future growth
3.105 Detective's Workstation 80 1 12 960 Large workstations; includes projected growth
3.106 SRO Workstation 48 2 3 288 Large 2-person workstations; includes projected future SRO
3.107 Administrative Support 64 1 4 256 Workstations; includes projected staff growth
3.108 Processing/Meeting Room 500 1 1 500 Case reviews, APS/CPS meetings, incident command center
3.109 Offender Registration 100 1 1 100 Sexual and violent offender registration program
3.110 General Storage 100 1 1 100 Secure
3.111 Computer Room 60 1 1 60 Printer, etc.
3.112 CSI Supplies/Surveillance Equipment 200 1 1 200 Body wires, cameras, crime scene kits, night vision equip., etc.
3.113 Interview Room 60 1 5 300
3.114 Observation Room 100 1 1 100 Locate to observe interview rooms
3.115 Witness Toilet 50 1 2 100 ADA compliant
3.116 Confidential Records 150 1 1 150 Separate, secure storage for sex & violent offender records
3.117 Work Area 100 1 1 100 Video surveillance dubbing
3.118 Vehicle Processing 1,400 1 1 1,400
One large bay for 1-ton vehicle. 2 car bays; exterior access for
flat bed tow truck; may serve as department vehicle light
service/maintenance
Subtotal Net Area 5,554
Departmental Grossing Factor 35% 1,944
TOTAL DGSF FOR PATROL 7,498
Building Gross 15% 1,125
TOTAL BGSF FOR INVESTIGATIONS 8,623
Source: Carter Goble Associates, December 2006; Rev. February 2007
105
BOZEMAN POLICE AND MUNICIPAL COURT NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND FACILITIES PLAN
CHAPTER THREE – SPACE PROGRAM
3-11
Carter Goble Lee
Figure 3-3
Investigations Space Adjacency
20'15'10'5'0 Access
3.116
Confidential
Records
150 SF 3.108
Processing/
Meeting Room
500 SF
3.117
Work
Area
100 SF
3.103
Drug
Task F.
100 SF
3.103
Drug
Task F.
100 SF
3.110
General
Storage
100 SF 3.111
Comp. R60 SF
3.115
Witn.
Toilet50 SF
3.115
Witn.
Toilet50 SF
3.109
Offender
Registr.
100 SF
3.112
CSI Supplies/
Surveillance Equip.
200 SF
3.106
SRO Workstation
288 SF
3.107
Administrative
Support
256 SF
3.102
Lieutenant
140 SF
3.104
Detective
Sgt.
120 SF
3.104
Detective
Sgt.
120 SF
3.105
Detective’s Workstation
960 SF
3.118
Vehicle Processing
1,400 SF
Exterior
Staff Access Vehicle Access
3.114
Observ. Room
100 SF
3.113Interv.Room
60 SF3.113
Interv Rm
60 SF
3.113
Interv Rm
60 SF
3.113
Interv.
Room60 SF
3.103
Drug
Task F.
100 SF
3.103
Drug
Task F.
100 SF
3.101
Superv./
Deputy
Chief
140 SF
3.113
Interv Rm60 SF
106
BOZEMAN POLICE AND MUNICIPAL COURT NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND FACILITIES PLAN
CHAPTER THREE – SPACE PROGRAM
3-12
Carter Goble Lee
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
Space Space Persons/Total
Number Space Description Standard Space Quantity NSF Comments
4.000 SUPPORT SERVICES
4.100 Administration
4.101 Lieutenant Supervisor 140 1 1 140 Private office
4.102 Animal Control Officer 64 1 4 256 Workstation; includes projected growth
4.103 Animal Control Storage 60 1 1 60 Traps, cages, etc.
4.104 Traffic/Parking Officer 64 1 6 384 Workstation, accident investigations to replace current parking
staff; includes projected growth
4.105 Grants/Training Officer 100 1 2 200 Private office
4.106 DARE Officer 100 1 1 100 Private office
4.107 DARE Supplies 50 1 1 50 May be included w/ DARE office
4.108 Victim Advocate Waiting 100 11100
4.109 Victim Advocate Office 100 1 2 200 Private office, access to interview rooms
4.110 Child/Forensic Interview Room 80 1 1 80 Comfortable w/child-appropriate furnishings
4.111 Observation Room 100 11100
4.112 Records Management Staff 64 1 - - Space allocated at 1.400
4.113 Records Room 240 1 - - Space allocated at 1.400
4.114 Computer Room 60 1 1 60 Printer, etc.
4.115 Uniform Storage 200 1 1 200 Boots, uniforms, etc.
Subtotal Net Area 1,930
Departmental Grossing Factor 35% 676
Total DGSF 2,606
4.200 Evidence
4.201 Receiving Counter 120 1 1 120 Counter w/ technician work area
4.202 Evidence Lockers 60 1 1 60 After-hours evidence deposit; 2-sided
4.203 Property Officer 100 1 1 100 Private office
4.204 Evidence Technician 80 1 2 160 Large workstations, includes projected growth; adjacent to
evidence storage
4.205 Long-Term Evidence Storage 700 1 1 700 Secure, high-density storage shelf system
4.206 Special Evidence Storage 100 1 3 300 As required for biohazards, combustibles, weapons, money,
perishable materials requiring refrigeration, etc.
4.207 Processing Lab 150 1 1 150 Near receiving and storage, fume hoods/equipment as req'd.
4.208 Bicycle/Found Property Storage 400 1 1 400 Cold storage
4.209 Impound Lot 6,000 1 1 6,000 Exterior area, not included in space totals; fenced & gated
Subtotal Net Area 1,990
Departmental Grossing Factor 35% 697
Total DGSF 2,687
TOTAL DGSF FOR SUPPORT SERVICES 5,292
Building Gross 15% 794
TOTAL BGSF FOR SUPPORT SERVICES 6,086
Source: Carter Goble Associates, December 2006; Rev. February 2007.
107
BOZEMAN POLICE AND MUNICIPAL COURT NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND FACILITIES PLAN
CHAPTER THREE – SPACE PROGRAM
3-13
Carter Goble Lee
Figure 3-4
Support Services Space Adjacency
4.205
Long-Term Evidence
Storage
700 SF
4.206
Special Evidence Storage
300 SF
4.204
Evidence
Technician
160 SF
4.202
Evid. L.
60 SF
4.201
Receiving
Counter
120 SF
4.203
Property
Officer
100 SF
4.207
Processing
Lab
150 SF
Internal
Access
4.109
Victim
Advocate
100 SF
4.109
Victim
Advocate
100 SF
4.105
Grants/
Trainer
100 SF
4.105
Grants/
Trainer
100 SF
4.102
Animal
Control Off.
128 SF
4.104
Traffic Officers
256 SF
4.107DARE
Sup.
50 SF4.114Comp. R60 SFExterior
Access
To Investigations
20'15'10'5'0
4.208
Bicycle/
Found
Property
Storage
400 SF
4.209
Impound Lot
6,000 SF(May be remote)
4.110
Child F
Inter R
80 SF
4.111
Observ.
Room
100 SF
4.108
Victim Ad
Waiting
100 SF
4.103Animal CStorage
60 SF
4.101
Lt. Supervisor
140 SF
4.115
Uniform
Storage
200 SF
4.106
DARE
Officer
100 SF
Access
108
BOZEMAN POLICE AND MUNICIPAL COURT NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND FACILITIES PLAN
CHAPTER THREE – SPACE PROGRAM
3-14
Carter Goble Lee
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 matters”.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, http://courts.mt.gov/lcourt
109
BOZEMAN POLICE AND MUNICIPAL COURT NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND FACILITIES PLAN
CHAPTER THREE – SPACE PROGRAM
3-15
Carter Goble Lee
Table 3-5
Municipal Courts Space Program
Space Space Persons/Total
Number Space Description Standard Space Quantity NSF Comments
5.000 MUNICIPAL COURT
5.100 Courtrooms 2 Courtrooms
5.101 Courtroom 1,600 1 1 1,600
Bench, witness stand, clerk's workstation/desk, jury box for 7,
counsel tables, spectator seating for 50
5.102 Soundlock Vestibule 100 1 1 100
5.103 Interview Room 80 1 1 80 Access from vestibule
5.104 Equipment/Storage Room 60 1 1 60
5.105 Bailiff Station 40 1 - - In courtroom well, area included in courtroom
5.106 Courtroom Waiting 160 1 1 160
5.107 Public Toilets - Male 120 1 0.5 60 Shared by 2 courtrooms
5.108 Public Toilets - Female 120 1 0.5 60 Shared by 2 courtrooms
5.109 Janitor's Closet 35 1 0.5 18 Serves courtrooms and waiting areas
5.110 Jury Deliberation Room 300 1 1 300 Beverage counter; may serve as conference room
5.111 Jury Toilets 50 1 2 100 Accessible from within jury room or ajoining secure vestibule
Subtotal Net Area 2,538
Departmental Grossing Factor 25% 634
Total DGSF Typical Courtroom 3,172
Total DGSF 2 Courtrooms 2 6,344
5,200 Judicial Suites 2 Judicial Suites
5.201 Judge's Office 240 1 1 240 Private toilet, closet
5.202 Judge's Chamber/Meeting Room 120 1 1 120 Adjacent to Judge's office
5.203 Bailiff Workstation 40 1 1 40
5.204 Files/Storage/Copy 60 1 0.5 30 Shared by two suites
5.205 Beverage Alcove 30 1 0.5 15 Shared by two suites
Subtotal Net Area 445
Departmental Grossing Factor 35% 156
Total DGSF 601
2 1,202
5.300 Municipal Court Support
5.301 Waiting Area 500 1 1 500
Contiguous with or adjacent to 1.102 Public Lobby; if separate,
increase to 1000 SF
5.302 Reception Counter 100 1 3 300 Open counter w/adjacent workstations for 3 staff
5.303 Staff Workstation 64 1 5 320 Modular workstations; includes projected future staff growth
5.304 Judicial Assistant's Office 120 1 1 120 Locate near Judges
5.305 Restitution Officer 120 1 1 120
5.306 Work Room 100 1 1 100 Copier, fax, supplies
5.307 Records Room - Active Records 120 1 1 120
5.308 Records Room - Inactive Records 400 1 1 400 High-density shelving system recommended for growth
5.309 Staff Toilet 50 1 1 50
5.310 Staff Break Room 100 1 1 100 Counter w/sink, refrigerator, microwave; seating for 3-4
5.311 General Storage 120 1 1 120
Subtotal Net Area 2,250
Departmental Grossing Factor 35% 788
Total DGSF 3,038
TOTAL DGSF FOR MUNICIPAL COURTS 10,583
Building Gross 15% 1,587
TOTAL BGSF FOR MUNICIPAL COURT 12,170
Source: Carter Goble Associates, January 2007; Rev. March 2007
Total DGSF 2 Judicial Suites
110
BOZEMAN POLICE AND MUNICIPAL COURT NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND FACILITIES PLAN
CHAPTER THREE – SPACE PROGRAM
3-16
Carter Goble Lee
Figure 3-5
Municipal Courts Space Adjacency
5.101
Courtrooms
1,600 SF
5.103
Interv.
Room
80 SF
5.101
Courtrooms
1,600 SF
5.105Bailiff
5.102
Soundlk
Vestibule
100 SF
5.106
Courtroom
Waiting
160 SF
5.107
Public Toil.
Male
120 SF
5.108
Public Toil.
Female
120 SF
5.105Bailiff
5.103
Interv.
Room
80 SF
5.102
Soundlk
Vestibule
100 SF
5.106
Courtroom
Waiting
160 SF
5.111
Jury
Toilet
50 SF
5.111
Jury
Toilet
50 SF
5.111
Jury
Toilet
50 SF
5.111
Jury
Toilet
50 SF
5.1110
Jury
Deliberation
Room
300 SF
5.1110
Jury
Deliberation
Room
300 SF
5.104
Equip/Storage60 SF
5.104
Equip/Storage60 SF
5.109Jan Clos35 SF
Access
20'15'10'5'0
Access
PUBLIC CIRCULATION
SECURE JUDICIAL CORRIDOR
111
BOZEMAN POLICE AND MUNICIPAL COURT NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND FACILITIES PLAN
CHAPTER THREE – SPACE PROGRAM
3-17
Carter Goble Lee
Figure 3-5 (continued)
Municipal Courts Space Adjacency
5.202
Judge’s C/
Meeting R
120 SF
5.201
Judge’s
Office
240 SF5.203BailiffWksta.40 SF
5.202
Judge’s C/
Meeting R
120 SF
5.201
Judge’s
Office
240 SF 5.203BailiffWksta.40 SF
5.204Files/Sto/
Copy
60 SF
5.205Bever.30 SF
SECURE JUDICIAL CORRIDOR
20'15'10'5'0
112
BOZEMAN POLICE AND MUNICIPAL COURT NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND FACILITIES PLAN
CHAPTER THREE – SPACE PROGRAM
3-18
Carter Goble Lee
Figure 3-5 (continued)
Municipal Courts Space Adjacency
5.307
Records
Room-
Active
150 SF
5.310
Staff
Break R
100 SF
5.311
General
Storage
120 SF
5.309
Staff
Toilet50 SF
5.304
Judicial
Asst. Off.
120 SF
20'15'10'5'0
To 5.100
Courtroom
5.305
Restitution
Officer
120 SF
5.306
Work
Room
100 SF
5.308
Records Room - Inactive
400 SF
5.302
Reception Counter
300 SF
5.303
Staff Workstation
320 SF
5.301
Waiting Area
500 SF
1.102
Administration
Public Lobby
500 SF
To 5.100
Courtroom
Public Access
To 5.200
Judicial Suites
113
BOZEMAN POLICE AND MUNICIPAL COURT NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND FACILITIES PLAN
CHAPTER THREE – SPACE PROGRAM
3-19
Carter Goble Lee
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 54,862 BGSF.
Table 3-6
Summary of 20-Year Space Program
# Component Net SF DGSF BGSF
1.000 ADMINISTRATION
1.100 Reception and Waiting 1,555 2,099 2,414
1.200 Executive and Administration 1,246 1,682 1,934
1.300 Training and Fitness 4,033 5,041 5,797
1.400 Shared General Spaces 2,714 3,664 4,213
1.500 Bozeman Prosecutor 1,784 2,408 2,770
Total Administration 11,332 14,894 17,128
2.000 PATROL DIVISION
2.100 Patrol Division 6,992 9,439 10,855
Total Patrol Division 6,992 9,439 10,855
3.000 INVESTIGATIONS
3.100 Detectives 5,554 7,498 8,623
Total Investigations 5,554 7,498 8,623
4.000 SUPPORT SERVICES
4.100 Administration 1,930 2,606 2,996
4.200 Evidence 1,990 2,687 3,089
Total Support Services 3,920 5,292 6,086
5.000 MUNICIPAL COURT
5.100 Courtrooms 5,075 6,344 7,295
5.200 Judicial Suites 890 1,202 1,382
5.300 Municipal Court Support 2,250 3,038 3,493
Total Municipal Court 8,215 10,583 12,170
TOTAL SQUARE FEET - MINIMUM SIZE FACILITY 36,013 47,706 54,862
Source: Carter Goble Associates, December 2006; Rev. March 2007
Bozeman Police Department Architectural Space Plan Summary
114
BOZEMAN POLICE AND MUNICIPAL COURT NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND FACILITIES PLAN
CHAPTER THREE – SPACE PROGRAM
3-20
Carter Goble Lee
Figure 3-6
Overall Space Adjacency
4.000
SUPPORT1.200
EXECUTIVE
AND
ADMINISTRATION
1.000
RECEPTION
AND
WAITING
1.400
SHARED GENERAL SPACE
1.300
TRAINING AND FITNESS
Public Entry
2.000
PATROL DIVISION
3.000
INVESTIGATIONS
Exterior Staff and Vehicle Access
5.000
MUNICIPAL COURT
115
BOZEMAN POLICE AND MUNICIPAL COURT NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND FACILITIES PLAN
CHAPTER THREE – SPACE PROGRAM
3-21
Carter Goble Lee
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 April 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 240 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 $12.75 million is estimated for April 2007. Note: Cost units will need to be adjusted
to reflect mid-point construction costs.
Table 3-7
Bozeman Police Department
Preliminary Construction and Project Cost Estimates
January 2007 Values
Total Estimated
Square Footage
(DGSF)
Cost/ SF Construction Cost
1.000 ADMINISTRATION 14,894 155$ 2,308,613$
2.000 PATROL DIVISION 9,439 180$ 1,699,056$
3.000 INVESTIGATIONS 7,498 180$ 1,349,622$
4.000 SUPPORT SERVICES 5,292 175$ 926,100$
5.000 MUNICIPAL COURT 10,583 185$ 1,957,809$
47,706 173$ 8,241,199$
7,156 110$ 787,151$
240 Parking Spaces 78,000 4$ 312,000$
467,018$
54,862 179$ 9,807,368$
2,942,210$
12,749,578$
NOTE: All costs are projected to April 2007 with no escalation to mid-point construction.
Cost Component
FACILITY CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Subtotal All Areas
PROJECT COST ADDITIVES
*Includes A/E Design and Program Management Fees; Testing; Furniture, Fixtures and Equipment (FF&E); Construction and Design
Contingency
TOTAL PROJECT COST (excludes inflation to future construction mid-point and land purchase)
Subtotal Construction Cost
Building Gross @ 15%
Other Project Costs* @ 30% of Construction
Site Preparation @ 5% of Construction
Source: Carter Goble Associates, December 2006 - Revised March 2007
116
xxCHAPTER FOURxx
SITE OPTIONS
117
BOZEMAN POLICE AND MUNICIPAL COURT NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND FACILITIES PLAN
CHAPTER FOUR – SITE OPTIONS
4-1
Carter Goble Lee
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.
118
BOZEMAN POLICE AND MUNICIPAL COURT NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND FACILITIES PLAN
CHAPTER FOUR – SITE OPTIONS
4-2
Carter Goble Lee
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.
119
BOZEMAN POLICE AND MUNICIPAL COURT NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND FACILITIES PLAN
CHAPTER FOUR – SITE OPTIONS
4-3
Carter Goble Lee
Table 4-1
City Property List
Location Use Acres
Baxter Meadows Equestrian Lane Park 10.4
Bogert Park 327 Church Avenue Park 6.8
Bronken Park Valley West Tract Park 39.1
Burke Park South Church & Cemetery Park 40.0
Cattail Creek, Phase 1, Park B Cattail & Catron Park 5.8
Christy Fields Black & Mason Park 6.5
East Graf Park North of Graf Street Park 15.4
Gardner Park Gardner Park Drive Park 8.4
Harvest Creek, Phase 3 & 4, Park 3 Oak and Annie Park 4.9
Kirk Park 20th & Beall Park 13.3
Langhor Park Tracy & Mason Park 8.9
Lindley Park Main & Buttonwood Park 12.6
McLeod Park Sundance Drive Park 18.0
New Hyalite View Spruce Drive Park 47.0
Oak Springs Subdivision Renova Lane Park 6.8
Regional Park Baxter & Ferguson Park 100.0
Rose Park Woodland & Oak Park 18.5
Sundance Trail Sundance Drive Park 18.0
Tuckerman Goldenstein Park 10.0
Valley Unit Park Cascade & Durston Park 8.6
Valley West Babcock & Clifden/Hanley Park 4.8
Valley West Annex Park 39.1
West Babcock West Babcock & Fowler Lane Park 5.3
Westlake Park 5th & Tamarack Park 5.9
Mandeville Farm 1225 Redwing Land 86.0
Source: City of Bozeman, November 2006.
City Property
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
120
BOZEMAN POLICE AND MUNICIPAL COURT NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND FACILITIES PLAN
CHAPTER FOUR – SITE OPTIONS
4-4
Carter Goble Lee
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)
Site 1: Mandeville Farm Site Weight
Site 2: L & J Site 5 Highly Important
Site 3: City Shops Site 3 Important
1 Little Importance
Sites
Criteria 1 2 3
Comments:
1 Highways/Roads
Weight 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 Congestion/Traffic Count
Weight 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
0 = Substantial current or near-term congestion
I. Location/Access
40
244
4
CITY OF BOZEMAN POLICE DEPARTMENT STUDY
ALTERNATE SITES EVALUATION CRITERIA AND RATINGS (RAW)
Unacceptable = 0
Rating Scale
This numeric rating scale is to be used for each of the 26 different rating criteria
Excellent = 8
Acceptable = 4
Poor = 2
121
BOZEMAN POLICE AND MUNICIPAL COURT NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND FACILITIES PLAN
CHAPTER FOUR – SITE OPTIONS
4-5
Carter Goble Lee
Table 4-2 (continued)
Alternate Site 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
Sites
Criteria 1 2 3
Comments:
3 Fire Department Services
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
0 = Response time over 30 minutes
4 Hospital and Emergency Medical
Services
Comments:
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
0 = Response time over 30 minutes
Comments:
5 Proximity to Judicial Facilities
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
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
0 = There is no current access to the site.
288
4
88
84
8
8
I. Location/Access (cont'd.)
CITY OF BOZEMAN POLICE DEPARTMENT STUDY
ALTERNATE SITES EVALUATION CRITERIA AND RATINGS (RAW)
Unacceptable = 0
Rating Scale
This numeric rating scale is to be used for each of the 26 different rating criteria
Excellent = 8
Acceptable = 4
Poor = 2
88
122
BOZEMAN POLICE AND MUNICIPAL COURT NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND FACILITIES PLAN
CHAPTER FOUR – SITE OPTIONS
4-6
Carter Goble Lee
Table 4-2 (continued)
Alternate Site 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
Sites
Criteria 1 2 3
Comments:
7 Site Size
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 full buffer zone possible
4 = 4-5 acres with min. 50' buffer zone possible
0 = <4 acres
Comments:
8 Configuration
Weight 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
Weight Factor - 5 The City Shops site is estimated to be capable of
TOTAL SCORE accommodating up to 230 cars in surface parking.
The City of 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
0 = Parking problems expensive to solve
Comments:
10 Contiguity
Weight 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
0 = Multiple parcels without total immediate adjacency
4
II. Physical Site Constraints
8
84
CITY OF BOZEMAN POLICE DEPARTMENT STUDY
ALTERNATE SITES EVALUATION CRITERIA AND RATINGS (RAW)
Unacceptable = 0
Rating Scale
This numeric rating scale is to be used for each of the 26 different rating criteria
Excellent = 8
Acceptable = 4
Poor = 2
888
4
222
8
123
BOZEMAN POLICE AND MUNICIPAL COURT NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND FACILITIES PLAN
CHAPTER FOUR – SITE OPTIONS
4-7
Carter Goble Lee
Table 4-2 (continued)
Alternate Site 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
Sites
Criteria 1 2 3
Comments:
11 Soil-Bearing Capacity Same values were assigned to this category, since
Weight 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 and/or
0 = Adds up to 75% or more to foundation cost foundation wall waterproofing might be required.
Comments:
12 Slope
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
Weight Factor - 1 The City Shops site is accessible on all sides from
TOTAL SCORE City streets, but only two are appropriate accessstreets.
8 = Site does not limit orientation for functional access
4 = Moderate on-site regrading required
2 = Moderate work required on and off site
0 = Extensive regrading and structures required on and off site
Comments:
14 Drainage
Weight 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
0 = Extensive regrading and structures required on and off site
II. Physical Site Constraints (cont'd.)
4
8
4
8
88
84
4
88
4
CITY OF BOZEMAN POLICE DEPARTMENT STUDY
ALTERNATE SITES EVALUATION CRITERIA AND RATINGS (RAW)
Unacceptable = 0
Rating Scale
This numeric rating scale is to be used for each of the 26 different rating criteria
Excellent = 8
Acceptable = 4
Poor = 2
124
BOZEMAN POLICE AND MUNICIPAL COURT NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND FACILITIES PLAN
CHAPTER FOUR – SITE OPTIONS
4-8
Carter Goble Lee
Table 4-2 (continued)
Alternate Site 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
Sites
Criteria 1 2 3
Comments:
15 Flood Plain
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
0 = Flooding could effect operations
Comments:
16 Wetlands
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
0 = Area is totally within designated wetland
Sites
Criteria 1 2 3
Comments:
17 Electricity
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
0 = Three-phase service not available
CITY OF BOZEMAN POLICE DEPARTMENT STUDY
ALTERNATE SITES EVALUATION CRITERIA AND RATINGS (WEIGHTED)
Unacceptable = 0
Rating Scale
This numeric rating scale is to be used for each of the 26 different rating criteria
Excellent = 8
Acceptable = 4
Poor = 2
24
24
III. Utilities
2424
24 24 24
II. Physical Site Constraints (cont'd.)
24 24
125
BOZEMAN POLICE AND MUNICIPAL COURT NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND FACILITIES PLAN
CHAPTER FOUR – SITE OPTIONS
4-9
Carter Goble Lee
Table 4-2 (continued)
Alternate Site 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
Sites
Criteria 1 2 3
Comments:
18 Water
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
0 = Public water over 1 mile
Comments:
19 Sewer
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
0 = Service not available near site
Sites
Criteria 1 2 3
Comments:
20 Availability
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
0 = Acquirable, but at high price and/or over 5 months
24 24
40 10
24
CITY OF BOZEMAN POLICE DEPARTMENT STUDY
ALTERNATE SITES EVALUATION CRITERIA AND RATINGS (WEIGHTED)
Unacceptable = 0
Rating Scale
This numeric rating scale is to be used for each of the 26 different rating criteria
Excellent = 8
Acceptable = 4
Poor = 2
III. Utilities (cont'd.)
IV. Availability and Legal Issues
24 12 24
40
126
BOZEMAN POLICE AND MUNICIPAL COURT NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND FACILITIES PLAN
CHAPTER FOUR – SITE OPTIONS
4-10
Carter Goble Lee
Table 4-2 (continued)
Alternate Site 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
Sites
Criteria 1 2 3
Comments:
21 Hazards from Incidents
Weight 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
0 = Likely incident
Comments:
22 Land and Construction Cost
Weight 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
0 = Extremely high priced real estate - cost is prohibitive
Comments:
23 Neighborhood, Land Use & ZoningCompatability 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
0 = Incompatible adjacent uses now and in future
CITY OF BOZEMAN POLICE DEPARTMENT STUDY
ALTERNATE SITES EVALUATION CRITERIA AND RATINGS (WEIGHTED)
Unacceptable = 0
Rating Scale
This numeric rating scale is to be used for each of the 26 different rating criteria
Excellent = 8
Acceptable = 4
Poor = 2
IV. Availability and Legal Issues (cont'd.)
20
10 40
10 20
12
40
12 12
127
BOZEMAN POLICE AND MUNICIPAL COURT NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND FACILITIES PLAN
CHAPTER FOUR – SITE OPTIONS
4-11
Carter Goble Lee
Table 4-2 (continued)
Alternate Site 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
Sites
Criteria 1 2 3
Comments:
24 Historic & Archeological Impacts
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
0 = Significant negative impacts cannot be sufficiently mitigated
Comments:
25 Easements
Weight 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-location
0 = Easements will substantially restrict site development
Comments:
26 Hazardous Waste
Weight 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.
0 - If site has hazardous waste
CITY OF BOZEMAN POLICE DEPARTMENT STUDY
ALTERNATE SITES EVALUATION CRITERIA AND RATINGS (WEIGHTED)
Unacceptable = 0
Rating Scale
This numeric rating scale is to be used for each of the 26 different rating criteria
Excellent = 8
Acceptable = 4
Poor = 2
24 12
IV. Availability and Legal Issues (cont'd.)
888
61224
24
Sites
Criteria 1 2 3
TOTAL RAW SCORES
Source: Carter Goble Lee, March 2007
150 166158
128
BOZEMAN POLICE AND MUNICIPAL COURT NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND FACILITIES PLAN
CHAPTER FOUR – SITE OPTIONS
4-12
Carter Goble Lee
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.
129
BOZEMAN POLICE AND MUNICIPAL COURT NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND FACILITIES PLAN
CHAPTER FOUR – SITE OPTIONS
4-13
Carter Goble Lee
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.
130
BOZEMAN POLICE AND MUNICIPAL COURT NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND FACILITIES PLAN
CHAPTER FOUR – SITE OPTIONS
4-14
Carter Goble Lee
Site 3 – City 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.
131
BOZEMAN POLICE AND MUNICIPAL COURT NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND FACILITIES PLAN
CHAPTER FOUR – SITE OPTIONS
4-15
Carter Goble Lee
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)
Site 1: Mandeville Farm Site Weight
Site 2: L & J Site 5 Highly Important
Site 3: City Shops Site 3Important
1 Little Importance
Sites
Criteria 1 2 3
Comments:
1 Highways/Roads
Weight 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 Congestion/Traffic Count
Weight 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
0 = Substantial current or near-term congestion
CITY OF BOZEMAN POLICE DEPARTMENT STUDY
ALTERNATE SITES EVALUATION CRITERIA AND RATINGS (WEIGHTED)
Unacceptable = 0
Rating Scale
This numeric rating scale is to be used for each of the 26 different rating criteria
Excellent = 8
Acceptable = 4
Poor = 2
10 20 20
20
I. Location/Access
20 0
132
BOZEMAN POLICE AND MUNICIPAL COURT NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND FACILITIES PLAN
CHAPTER FOUR – SITE OPTIONS
4-16
Carter Goble Lee
Table 4-3 (continued)
Alternate Site 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
Sites
Criteria 1 2 3
Comments:
3 Fire Department Services
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
0 = Response time over 30 minutes
4 Hospital and Emergency Medical
Services
Comments:
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
0 = Response time over 30 minutes
Comments:
5 Proximity to Judicial Facilities
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
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
0 = There is no current access to the site.
4040
CITY OF BOZEMAN POLICE DEPARTMENT STUDY
ALTERNATE SITES EVALUATION CRITERIA AND RATINGS (WEIGHTED)
Unacceptable = 0
Rating Scale
This numeric rating scale is to be used for each of the 26 different rating criteria
Excellent = 8
Acceptable = 4
Poor = 2
I. Location/Access (cont'd.)
40
40 40 40
24 12
10 40 40
12
133
BOZEMAN POLICE AND MUNICIPAL COURT NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND FACILITIES PLAN
CHAPTER FOUR – SITE OPTIONS
4-17
Carter Goble Lee
Table 4-3 (continued)
Alternate Site Evaluation Criteria and Ratings (Weighted)
Site 1: Mandeville Farm Site Weight
Site 2: L & J Site 5 Highly Important
Site 3: City Shops Site 3Important
1 Little Importance
Sites
Criteria 1 2 3
Comments:
7 Site Size
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 full buffer zone possible
4 = 4-5 acres with min. 50' buffer zone possible
0 = <4 acres
Comments:
8 Configuration
Weight 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
Weight Factor - 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
0 = Parking problems expensive to solve structure would be required.
Comments:
10 Contiguity
Weight 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
0 = Multiple parcels without total immediate adjacency
24 24 24
20
666
40
CITY OF BOZEMAN POLICE DEPARTMENT STUDY
ALTERNATE SITES EVALUATION CRITERIA AND RATINGS (WEIGHTED)
Unacceptable = 0
Rating Scale
This numeric rating scale is to be used for each of the 26 different rating criteria
Excellent = 8
Acceptable = 4
Poor = 2
20
II. Physical Site Constraints
40
40 20
134
BOZEMAN POLICE AND MUNICIPAL COURT NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND FACILITIES PLAN
CHAPTER FOUR – SITE OPTIONS
4-18
Carter Goble Lee
Table 4-3 (continued)
Alternate Site 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
Sites
Criteria 1 2 3
Comments:
11 Soil-Bearing Capacity Same values were assigned to this category, since
Weight 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 and/or
0 = Adds up to 75% or more to foundation cost foundation wall waterproofing might be required.
Comments:
12 Slope
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
Weight Factor - 1 The City Shops site is accessible on all sides from
TOTAL SCORE City streets, but only two are appropriate accessstreets.
8 = Site does not limit orientation for functional access
4 = Moderate on-site regrading required
2 = Moderate work required on and off site
0 = Extensive regrading and structures required on and off site
Comments:
14 Drainage
Weight 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
0 = Extensive regrading and structures required on and off site
CITY OF BOZEMAN POLICE DEPARTMENT STUDY
ALTERNATE SITES EVALUATION CRITERIA AND RATINGS (WEIGHTED)
Unacceptable = 0
Rating Scale
This numeric rating scale is to be used for each of the 26 different rating criteria
Excellent = 8
Acceptable = 4
Poor = 2
4
4
88
4
88
8
II. Physical Site Constraints (cont'd.)
4
8
4
8
135
BOZEMAN POLICE AND MUNICIPAL COURT NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND FACILITIES PLAN
CHAPTER FOUR – SITE OPTIONS
4-19
Carter Goble Lee
Table 4-3 (continued)
Alternate Site 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
Sites
Criteria 1 2 3
Comments:
15 Flood Plain
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
0 = Flooding could effect operations
Comments:
16 Wetlands
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
0 = Area is totally within designated wetland
Sites
Criteria 1 2 3
Comments:
17 Electricity
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
0 = Three-phase service not available
CITY OF BOZEMAN POLICE DEPARTMENT STUDY
ALTERNATE SITES EVALUATION CRITERIA AND RATINGS (WEIGHTED)
Unacceptable = 0
Rating Scale
This numeric rating scale is to be used for each of the 26 different rating criteria
Excellent = 8
Acceptable = 4
Poor = 2
24
24
III. Utilities
2424
24 24 24
24 24
II. Physical Site Constraints (cont'd.)
136
BOZEMAN POLICE AND MUNICIPAL COURT NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND FACILITIES PLAN
CHAPTER FOUR – SITE OPTIONS
4-20
Carter Goble Lee
Table 4-3 (continued)
Alternate Site 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
Sites
Criteria 1 2 3
Comments:
18 Water
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
0 = Public water over 1 mile
Comments:
19 Sewer
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
0 = Service not available near site
Sites
Criteria 1 2 3
Comments:
20 Availability
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
0 = Acquirable, but at high price and/or over 5 months
24 24
40 10
24
CITY OF BOZEMAN POLICE DEPARTMENT STUDY
ALTERNATE SITES EVALUATION CRITERIA AND RATINGS (WEIGHTED)
Unacceptable = 0
Rating Scale
This numeric rating scale is to be used for each of the 26 different rating criteria
Excellent = 8
Acceptable = 4
Poor = 2
III. Utilities (cont'd.)
IV. Availability and Legal Issues
24 12 24
40
137
BOZEMAN POLICE AND MUNICIPAL COURT NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND FACILITIES PLAN
CHAPTER FOUR – SITE OPTIONS
4-21
Carter Goble Lee
Table 4-3 (continued)
Alternate Site Evaluation Criteria and Ratings (Weighted)
Site 1: Mandeville Farm Site Weight
Site 2: L & J Site 5 Highly Important
Site 3: City Shops Site 3Important
1 Little Importance
Sites
Criteria 1 2 3
Comments:
21 Hazards from Incidents
Weight 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
0 = Likely incident
Comments:
22 Land and Construction Cost
Weight 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
0 = Extremely high priced real estate - cost is prohibitive
Comments:
23 Neighborhood, Land Use & ZoningCompatability 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
0 = Incompatible adjacent uses now and in future
CITY OF BOZEMAN POLICE DEPARTMENT STUDY
ALTERNATE SITES EVALUATION CRITERIA AND RATINGS (WEIGHTED)
Unacceptable = 0
Rating Scale
This numeric rating scale is to be used for each of the 26 different rating criteria
Excellent = 8
Acceptable = 4
Poor = 2
IV. Availability and Legal Issues (cont'd.)
20
10 40
10 20
12
40
12 12
138
BOZEMAN POLICE AND MUNICIPAL COURT NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND FACILITIES PLAN
CHAPTER FOUR – SITE OPTIONS
4-22
Carter Goble Lee
Table 4-3 (continued)
Alternate Site Evaluation Criteria and Ratings (Weighted)
Site 1: Mandeville Farm Site Weight
Site 2: L & J Site 5 Highly Important
Site 3: City Shops Site 3Important
1 Little Importance
Sites
Criteria 1 2 3
Comments:
24 Historic & Archeological Impacts
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
0 = Significant negative impacts cannot be sufficiently mitigated
Comments:
25 Easements
Weight 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-location
0 = Easements will substantially restrict site development
Comments:
26 Hazardous Waste
Weight 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.
0 - If site has hazardous waste
CITY OF BOZEMAN POLICE DEPARTMENT STUDY
ALTERNATE SITES EVALUATION CRITERIA AND RATINGS (WEIGHTED)
Unacceptable = 0
Rating Scale
This numeric rating scale is to be used for each of the 26 different rating criteria
Excellent = 8
Acceptable = 4
Poor = 2
24 12
IV. Availability and Legal Issues (cont'd.)
888
61224
24
Sites
Criteria 1 2 3
TOTAL WEIGHTED SCORES
Source: Carter Goble Lee, March 2007
482 546526
139
BOZEMAN POLICE AND MUNICIPAL COURT NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND FACILITIES PLAN
CHAPTER FOUR – SITE OPTIONS
4-23
Carter Goble Lee
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.
Option 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.
140
BOZEMAN POLICE AND MUNICIPAL COURT NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND FACILITIES PLAN
CHAPTER FOUR – SITE OPTIONS
4-24
Carter Goble Lee
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 loss 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 $12.75 million in April 2007 dollars was computed for a police headquarters based
upon the 20-year space program.
141
xxAPPENDIX 1xx
PERSONNEL PROJECTION DETAIL
142
BOZEMAN POLICE AND MUNICIPAL COURT NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND FACILITIES PLAN
APPENDIX 1 – PERSONNEL PROJECTION DETAIL
A1-1
Carter Goble Lee
Police Personnel Projection Detail: The charts below present the historic data and trends from 2001 to 2006 for
service population, authorized Bozeman Police staff, and crime rate. The variables used for the personnel projection
models - future service population totals and crime rate levels – are also shown. To project a crime rate for future years,
an analysis of historic crime rates through linear regression and ratios to historic service population from 2001 to 2006
was conducted. Since any projection from the historic crime rate trend results in a decrease, the low or current (2006)
ratio of crime rate to service population was selected and applied to future service population levels to estimate a future
crime rate for planning purposes.
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Service Population 32,359 33,653 35,235 37,596 40,002 41,602
Authorized Police Staff 48.50 51.50 52.00 52.00 56.00 58.00
Crime Rate 5,623 6,491 5,117 6,745 5,614 5,034
Staff / 1,000 Population 1.50 1.53 1.48 1.38 1.40 1.39
Crime / 1,000 Population 173.77 192.88 145.22 179.41 140.34 121.00
Staff / 1,000 Crime 8.63 7.93 10.16 7.71 9.98 11.52
Number Per Year Percent Per Year
Staff 9.50 1.90 20% 4% 53.00
Crime Rate (589.00) -117.80 -10% -2% 5770.67
Staff/1,000 Crime Rate (0.10) -0.02 -7% -1% 1.45
Crime / 1,000 Population (52.77) -10.55 -30% -6% 158.77
Staff / 1,000 Crime 2.90 0.58 34% 7% 9.32
2011 2016 2021 2026
Service Population
1) Service Population 53,096 67,765 86,488 110,383
Crime Rate
1) Linear Regression 4,925 4,361 3,797 3,233
2) Ratio to Population
a. High = 192.88 10,241 13,071 16,682 21,291
b. Average = 158.77 8,430 10,759 13,732 17,526
c. Low = 121.00 6,425 8,200 10,465 13,357
Recommend 2c 6,425 8,200 10,465 13,357
Ratio to 1,000 Service Population 121.00 121.00 121.00 121.00
Historic Year
Projection Year
Data/Ratios
Variables
# Change % Change AverageHistorical Trends
143
BOZEMAN POLICE AND MUNICIPAL COURT NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND FACILITIES PLAN
APPENDIX 1 – PERSONNEL PROJECTION DETAIL
A1-2
Carter Goble Lee
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.
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
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 / 1,000 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
Number Per Year Percent Per Year
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 / 1,000 Population (44.56) -8.91 -13% -3% 304.85
Filings/ Staff (153.00) -30.60 -7% -1% 2038.13
2011 2016 2021 2026
Service Population
1) Service Population 53,096 67,765 86,488 110,383
Court Filings
1) Historical Number Change (+253 Per Year) 13,459 14,726 15,993 17,260
1) Linear Regression 10,091 9,428 8,765 8,103
2) Ratio Court Filings to 1,000 Service Population
a. Existing = 293.06 15,560 19,859 25,346 32,349
b. High = 394.05 20,923 26,703 34,081 43,497
c. Average = 304.85 16,186 20,658 26,366 33,650
d. Low = 236.76 12,571 16,044 20,477 26,135
Recommend Average 1 & 2c 14,823 17,692 21,179 25,455
Ratio to 1,000 Service Population 279.17 261.08 244.88 230.61
Historic YearData/Ratios
Projection YearVariables
# Change % Change AverageHistorical Trends
144
xxAPPENDIX 2xx
SPACE STANDARDS
145
BOZEMAN POLICE AND MUNICIPAL COURT NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND FACILITIES PLAN
APPENDIX 2 – SPACE STANDARDS
A2-1
Carter Goble Lee
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:
146
BOZEMAN POLICE AND MUNICIPAL COURT NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND FACILITIES PLAN
APPENDIX 2 – SPACE STANDARDS
A2-2
Carter Goble Lee
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.
SPACE DESIGNATION OR TITLE AREA (NSF)
Administrative Spaces
Elected Official 200
Department Head/Component Director’s Office 180
Assistant Department Head/Assistant Director 150
Supervisor/Manager 120
Attorney’s Office 140
Standard Private Office 100
Semi-Private Office (2 persons) 150 Department/Division Secretary 100
Oversize Workstation 80
Reception Counter & Workstation 80
Standard Workstation 64
Clerical/Intern Workstation 48
Service Counter w/ Work Area 80/ Station
Public Counter 25/ Station
Rear Counter Work area 15/ Station
Public Queuing Area 10/ Person
Office Waiting Area 15/ Person
Conference Room 20/ Person
Interview Room/Classroom 20/ Person
Meeting Room 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.
147
BOZEMAN POLICE AND MUNICIPAL COURT NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND FACILITIES PLAN
APPENDIX 2 – SPACE STANDARDS
A2-3
Carter Goble Lee
SPACE DESIGNATION OR TITLE AREA (NSF)
Judicial and Judicial Support Spaces
Standard Courtroom 1,600
Soundlock Vestibule 120
Victim/ Witness/ Attorney Interview Room 100
Equipment Room 60
Single Holding Cell w/ Combination Unit 50
Group Holding Room w/ Combination Unit 25/ Person
Judge’s/ Master’s Hearing Room 800
Mediation Room 360
Judicial Officer’s Chamber (Incl. toilet, closet) 320
Judicial Assistant (Incl. waiting for 4-6) 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.
SPACE DESIGNATION OR TITLE AREA (NSF)
Law Enforcement Spaces
Physical Training Room 120/ Person
Mustering Room 20/ Person
Law Enforcement Training Classroom 35/ Student
Lab Vehicle Garage 400/ Bay
148
BOZEMAN POLICE AND MUNICIPAL COURT NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND FACILITIES PLAN
APPENDIX 2 – SPACE STANDARDS
A2-4
Carter Goble Lee
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.
SPACE DESIGNATION OR TITLE AREA (NSF)
Administrative Support Spaces
Support Spaces
Private Toilets (H/C Accessible) 50
Multiple Person Toilet 40/ Person
Janitor’s Closet 30
Computer Equipment Room 100
Open Files Area 15/ Unit
Beverage Station 30
Work/ Copy Room 120 – 200
Staff Break Room 120 – 150
Office Supply Storage 50 – 100
General Storage 100 – 150
File Storage Room Varies
Vending Machine 15/ Machine
Public Areas & Circulation
Lobby 12/ Person
Public Toilets 80 – 200/ Codes
Elevator Lobby 50/ Elevator/ Floor
Public Elevator 80/ Elevator/ Floor
Telephone Bank 15/ Telephone
Public Information Kiosk 160
Equipment & Storage Unit Sizes
Copy Machine – Desk Top 35 *
Copy Machine – Floor 60 *
Fax Machine – Desk Top 25 *
Computer and Printer Stand 25 *
Microfilm Carousel 5
Microfilm Reader 25 *
149
BOZEMAN POLICE AND MUNICIPAL COURT NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND FACILITIES PLAN
APPENDIX 2 – SPACE STANDARDS
A2-5
Carter Goble Lee
SPACE DESIGNATION OR TITLE AREA (NSF)
Storage File Box (stacked 5 high) 3
Shelf Storage (15 LF – 5 shelves @ 3 LF) 3
Storage Cabinet 5
Vertical File (assume average 4 drawers high for required floor area) 7
Lateral File (assume average 4 drawers high for required floor area) 9
Drawing Flat File 12
Drawing Vertical File 7
Plan Holder Rack 6
Deed Books (may be stacked 8 or higher in flat racks) 3
* Includes floor area required for operator.
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.
150
xxAPPENDIX 3xx
RAILROAD SECURITY
151
BOZEMAN POLICE AND MUNICIPAL COURT NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND FACILITIES PLAN
APPENDIX 3 – RAILROAD SECURITY
A3-1
Carter Goble Lee
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.
152
BOZEMAN POLICE AND MUNICIPAL COURT NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND FACILITIES PLAN
APPENDIX 3 – RAILROAD SECURITY
A3-2
Carter Goble Lee
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.
153
BOZEMAN POLICE AND MUNICIPAL COURT NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND FACILITIES PLAN
APPENDIX 3 – RAILROAD SECURITY
A3-3
Carter Goble Lee
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.gov/us/content/3
3 FRA website, www.fra.dot.gov/us/content/337
4 FRA website, www.fra.dot.gov/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).
154