HomeMy WebLinkAboutA 1 New Boz PD and CourtsPage 1 of 8
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission FROM: Chuck Winn, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: New Bozeman Police and Municipal Courts Building
MEETING DATE: July 21, 2014
AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Action RECOMMENDATION: Approve the design concepts and estimated costs for the new Police and
Municipal Courts building and direct staff to prepare, and bring back for
Commission consideration a November election resolution that includes
the sale of bonds to fund construction and a mill levy increase for ongoing operations.
SUGGESTED MOTION: Having considered public comment and the information presented by
staff, I hereby move to direct the Assistant City Manager to prepare a bond election resolution to
include two questions; 1) the sale of bonds, not to exceed $23.8 million, to provide financing for construction, and 2) a mill levy increase request of up to 5.1 mills to fund ongoing operation and maintenance costs of the new facility.
BACKGROUND:
This project, in various forms, has been on the City’s work plan since 2004. This memo discusses the
previous and current planning and programming efforts that have resulted in the proposal in front of
the City Commission tonight. We will address the following issues in our presentation:
1. Previous Planning and Programming Work
2. Project Design Team and Approach 3. Size and Composition of Planned Facility
4. Cost Estimates
1. PREVIOUS PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING WORK
In 2004, the City partnered with Gallatin County to conduct a facility and space needs assessment
for City and County law and justice functions. Later in 2006 the City Commission in its goals
included the completion of a new facility and a staffing study to plan for Police department growth
to meet increasing call volumes and demands for service. In 2006/07, the City contracted with
Carter, Goble, Lee (CGL) to conduct a 20-year best practices space and facilities assessment specific to the Bozeman Police Department and later amended that contract to include municipal
courts. The City adopted the findings and staffing methodologies and, in 2007, the voters approved
185
Page 2 of 8
the two public safety-related mill levy increases that added staffing in the Fire and Police Departments to meet the City’s public safety demands. Combined Facility Efforts with Gallatin County: In May 2010, the City joined with Gallatin
County in planning for the design and construction of a joint law enforcement building housing the
Gallatin County Sheriff and the Bozeman Police Department. The master planning work was completed and a draft report was presented to the City Commission in March 2011. Subsequent to
the adoption of the final master plan by Gallatin County, we worked to adopt a Memorandum of
Understanding for Improvements to L&J Campus Co-Location of Law Enforcement and Courts
(MOU). The MOU was adopted by both the City and County in August 2011. The County
appointed the Law and Justice Task Force and work began on a new joint facility in August 2012.
In January 2013, the County withdrew its commitment to the joint project and instructed the City to
build on its own. At that time we began negotiating with the County to acquire property on the
Law and Justice Center campus (L&J Site) to construct a city-only Police and Courts Facility.
Those negotiations failed to yield an agreement and resulted in months of delays and approximately $40,000 in costs to the City. When it became evident that we would not be able to
reconcile our differences and reach a deal that worked for both parties, we began searching for
other suitable locations for our police and municipal courts. Those efforts resulted in the City
Commission direction to move forward on the property exchange with Montana Department of
Transportation (MDT) that the City Commission approved on July 14, 2014.
It is critical to note that the Sheriff/Police co-location option provided the main value of the current
Law and Justice Center site as a long-term location for the Bozeman Police and Municipal Courts.
Having exhausted the option of co-location, the property was evaluated solely on its suitability as a
building site and location. The Law and Justice Campus location poses significant physical and operational restrictions that make it a less suitable location for the new City justice center when
compared to other locations. Those challenges include, but are not limited to: size, traffic patterns,
property costs, public frontage, existing buildings, lack of proximity to other City facilities and
limited secure parking options.
2. PROJECT DESIGN TEAM AND APPROACH
Architect. On September 10, 2012, the City Commission approved a professional services
agreement with Thinkone Architects for the design of a new Police and Municipal Courts Facility
as authorized in the FY2012 and 2013 budgets. Initial design efforts were focused on the L&J Site and then on the MDT property when the Commission designated the site for the new facility. Once
the location was determined we put together our project team to begin site specific design.
General Contractor/Construction Manager (GC/CM). Early in the planning stages, we believed
that the GC/CM form of project delivery would provide the best cost, design and construction outcomes for the project. The City has used this model (or variants of this model) in the
construction of Fire Station #3, the new Public Library and the Parking Garage. On March 24,
2014, the City Commission approved this alternative project delivery model for this project. The
GC/CM model creates a more collaborative relationship between the owner (the City), architect
and general contractor by bringing on the contractor early in the design process to evaluate constructability, estimated construction costs, energy efficiency, and long-term durability. In June
2014, we conducted a qualifications-based selection and selected Langlas and Associates as the
City’s GC/CM for the Facility. Since their selection, Langlas has been working directly with the
186
Page 3 of 8
project team to review constructability, material and construction costs and is here tonight to discuss those elements.
Commissioning. The process of commissioning is a required element of Leadership in Energy &
Environmental Design (LEED) certification. But, more importantly, commissioning provides
critical review of the complicated building systems and assures that those systems are installed and functioning as they were designed to after construction. We conducted a competitive qualification-
based selection process and selected McKinstry to act as the City’s commissioning agent on this
project.
3. SIZE AND COMPOSITION OF PLANNED FACILITY Building Overview. Presently, the Bozeman Police and Municipal Courts operate out of
approximately 16,000 square feet at the County’s Law and Justice Center. As mentioned above,
the 2007 Carter, Goble, Lee study analyzed the current and future operations of the police
department and municipal courts. That study recommended the City plan for a 53,800 gross square foot (gsf) building based on the services and partnerships existing at that time. Those assumptions
were reviewed in the Prugh and Lenon 2010 master plan and revised to 56,500 gsf based on facility
construction at the L&J site with the existing adjacent records and evidence functions on site.
After the decision to relocate police and court services to the Rouse location, the building’s
programming was expanded to include all necessary service components of City law enforcement, court, evidence, victim services and attorney services separate from the County. The current
project team revised the space calculations to 59,240 gsf and later to 65,790 as described in the
footnote below the following summary chart.
Study Location Recommended Size
2007 Carter, Goble, Lee L&J Campus 53,800 gsf
2011 Prugh and Lenon Master
Plan Update
Joint Facility with Gallatin
County on L&J Campus
56,500 gsf
2014 Thinkone - AMD Rouse 65,790 gsf*
*Project team’s initial space needs were calculated at 59,240. Further analysis of the sally port functions, increases in the community meeting rooms, future courts support spaces, vertical circulation requirements and the desire to easily
access and maintain the buildings system in mechanical penthouses, added an additional 6,550 sf to the project bringing the total gross square feet to 65,790.
It is worth noting that a significant amount of the increase in building size, when compared to
previous studies, is attributable to increases in space allocations in the City Attorney’s and Victim
Service offices:
• City Attorney – Presently, four City prosecutors share two small offices at the L&J. Previous plans provided for minimal work areas for prosecutors while their main offices remained at
City Hall. Currently, the prosecuting attorneys travel back and forth between Municipal Court
and City Hall several times each day. This required travel impedes their efficiency and
effectiveness. The new building provides adequate space for the City’s entire prosecution services including office and file space, meeting areas and support staff work areas. Moving
the prosecutors to the Rouse Justice Center will free up needed office space at City Hall.
187
Page 4 of 8
• Victim Services –Victim services plays a vital role for victims of violent crimes, domestic violence, sexual assault, and represents children in child abuse and neglect proceedings. It is
important these services be onsite with the Courts and Police functions.
We believe this current building proposal is well planned, provides for reasonable growth scenarios and will meet the needs of our community for decades.
The following table summarizes the space allocated to each of the Rouse Justice Center’s (our working
name for the Facility) main functions.
Gross Square Feet vs. Net Square Feet. Net square footage is the areas of the building specific to the
uses planned. In the example of the Rouse Justice Center, it includes the office spaces, training rooms,
patrol areas, courtrooms, etc. Gross square footage is the total of all those spaces plus the areas
necessary for their use including hallways, restrooms, mechanical spaces, etc. 4. COSTS ESTIMATES
Building Costs. As currently designed, the Rouse Justice Center is a two-story fully contained
essential services building. As an “essential services” building it is designed to remain operational during seismic activity expected for our seismic zone. It includes back-up power and fuel sources to allow the building to continue functioning for 72 hours without Northwestern Energy utility services.
188
Page 5 of 8
It includes high-quality reliable heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems designed with the intent of long-term energy savings and lower lifecycle operational costs. Additionally, the building provides areas for growth to meet the needs of Bozeman’s law and justice functions for the foreseeable
future.
The FY15 budget contains $22M funded by the sale of general obligation bonds for the completion of design, site work, and construction of the Rouse Justice Center. After many weeks of analysis, value engineering, changes to design and construction materials, total construction costs are expected to be in
the $23,714,000 range. Several factors have contributed to an increase in building construction and
site improvement costs. Those include, but are not limited to the following;
• City Attorney –The 2,300 gsf is assigned to the City Attorney’s office at a cost of
$667,000.
• Victim Services –The 1,590 gsf is allocated to victim services at a cost of $461,100.
• Mechanical Penthouses – The desire to place mechanical equipment where it is protected, can be easily accessible and readily maintained drove the need for the addition of 2,409
square feet of mechanical penthouses. These upfront costs, while additions to the
construction costs will pay long dividends in lowering the building’s future staff and
maintenance costs.
• Construction Inflation – Construction costs have been rising in 2014. According to
Engineering News Record (ENR), costs in Rocky Mountain West have risen by
approximately 1.5% or a $309,455 premium since January 1, 2014. Langlas & Associates’
experience in Bozeman is consistent with this data. It is estimated that construction costs will increase 3.5% in the 14 months between now and the time the project is bid and
materials are purchased. In addition to the costs noted above, we have included $660,000
for anticipated future escalation costs.
• Brownfield Site Work – The MDT property on Rouse has been used for decades as their
maintenance headquarters. For decades MDT has performed vehicle maintenance functions, stored equipment, paint and chemicals on the site, and conducted various fueling
operations on site. Although MDT has remediated all confirmed site contamination, the
site requires additional work that a green-field site would not. Costs attributable to
excavation, structural fill and site related expenses are included in the budget. We believe
that these additional costs are justified by the positive impacts that the cleanup and redevelopment will have on this part of town.
• Multi-Story Construction – The decision to build a multi-story building rather than a
more sprawling single level building has increased construction costs. Those added costs
include 3 elevators and stairs, increased foundation and structural steel costs as well as square footage increases for approximately 2,200 sf. This area applied to the building cost
per square foot is approximately $949,308, including contingencies.
Operational Costs. We have known all along that expanding to adequately meet our space needs
would result in increased operating costs to the City. Presently the City makes annual payments of $145,000 to Gallatin County for utilities, maintenance and lease payments for the Police and Municipal
Courts area contained at the L&J Site. With the construction of the new facility, we will no longer be
obligated to pay these costs; however, the new facility will be larger and incur operating expenses in
excess of what we currently pay the county. These are estimated below:
189
Page 6 of 8
• Records and Reception Staff. Currently, maintaining law enforcement records (police reports, incident reports, and criminal files) is a function of the County 9-1-1 system and is paid for through
the County-wide 9-1-1 mill levy. The records division is located in the Law and Justice Center and
also provides reception functions for the building. We will need both of these services at the Rouse
Justice Center. o If the City were to be solely responsible for the entire costs of providing records and reception functions, we would need to hire six (6) new FTE’s at an annual cost of
approximately $276,000, plus $4,800 in Criminal Justice Information Network (CJIN)
costs. If the City assumes all of the records responsibilities, the County should be able to
reduce their records staffing accordingly and return savings to the taxpayers. We project that this staffing level, augmented with existing police information specialist employees, will allow us to staff the lobby area of the new building from 7:00 am to 9:00 pm Monday
through Saturday, with coverage during daytime hours on Sundays at both locations. This
model isn’t ideal, because it separates the law enforcement records of Gallatin County and
the City of Bozeman. o Our preferred option for staffing our records and reception needs would be to continue to
partner with County 9-1-1. We are engaged in conversations with the 9-1-1 Director and
County Administrator to determine the feasibility of dividing County records staff between
the L&J Center and the new Rouse Justice Center. There are several benefits to this scenario including the creation of a critical law enforcement work site redundancy and an additional location from which to serve the public. We estimate the addition of 3.5 new
FTE staff members would be necessary to provide adequate staffing at the two locations,
increasing current County records staffing from 8.5 FTE to 12 FTE and assigning six (6) to
each location. The annual cost of these new records employees is expected to be $162,000 in the first year. In addition to the additional FTE staff, an annual cost of $4,800 will occur for additional CJIN Services licenses and annual usage costs. We believe that since the
City’s move necessitates the addition of these employees, the City should offer to cover
these costs.
• Evidence. Our current evidence operation is a shared function with Gallatin County. The evidence
technician is a city employee whose salary is shared 50/50 with the County. Moving to a new
location will require the City to pick up the half of the salary currently paid by the County.
Although this is a new cost, evidence workload has increased to the point where the current technician is unable to meet the needs of both the Sheriff’s Office and Police Department. This additional .5 FTE assigned to the City will allow us more appropriately service our community.
The additional cost for this .5 FTE is estimated at $33,000 in the first year.
• Utilities. The current design and construction type is geared toward a LEED Silver certification. The building is designed to be highly energy efficient and have relatively low energy costs when
compared to other buildings of its size. Currently, the architect and commissioning agent are
working on specific designs and specifications for the building systems and will be producing an
energy consumption model once the design is complete. For the purposes of the estimated
operational forecasts, we examined the utility costs of the public library (also a LEED Silver) which are approximately $100,000 per year. The Facility will be larger with a more intense 24/7
use; we have estimated at total of $150,000 in utility costs.
190
Page 7 of 8
• Custodial Services and Grounds Maintenance. This item includes custodial and landscaping maintenance. We are exploring the possibility of combining effort and workload with the Library
facility either through contract services with an existing company and/or adding to the part-time
custodian staff that is assigned to the Library. We believe there is an opportunity to take advantage
of efficiencies in both facilities when the new Rouse Justice Center opens. For the purposes of estimating operational costs we have used the current janitorial and lawn care service contract numbers at the Library while we further analyze the options for consolidation - $138,200.
These costs result in an annual increase of approximately $457,000 (equal to 5.1 mills, estimated) It is
our recommendation that, in addition to the construction bond question, the Commission also direct staff to place an operating mill levy question before the voters in the same election. UNRESOLVED ISSUES: Records Staffing for New Facility. As mentioned on the previous page,
we are discussing the possibility of augmenting the current records staff with 3.5 new FTE’s and
assigning half of the staff to the new Rouse Justice Center. We will continue these conversations and advise the Commission of our progress. If we can reach agreement we can expect to save $114,000 per year in staffing costs.
ALTERNATIVES:
Alternatives to Reduce Project Costs: We believe the building as designed and presented is the best option to meet the City of Bozeman’s criminal justice needs today and into the future. We have made every attempt to reduce the project costs to match the $22M budget number while still maintaining the
functionality of the building. Should the Commission wish to further reduce the project costs, options
such as elimination of the Sallyport, shelling Courtroom #3, not burying power lines on the site,
reducing Victim Services, and/or City Attorney space could be considered. Alternatives for Reducing the Operating Levy Question: We believe it is best to ask voters to approve
the tax increase to fund the annual operating amounts that the facility will require. However, the
Commission could choose not to ask voters for an operating levy for the new facility, or choose not to
levy the full amount of anticipated costs, and could instead look to the general fund to provide some or all of the anticipated $475,000 in annual operating costs. We do not believe this is the best option, as current budget requests exceed available funding in the general funded departments (which includes
police and fire.)
Another option would be to levy some of the 9 mills the Commission set aside when the County 9-1-1 levy was passed to augment new operating expenses related to records costs. Redesign: Should the Commission determine that the project does not meet the community’s needs or
the construction costs must be reduced in such a manner that redesign is required, the bond question
could be moved to sometime in 2015. We do not believe this is a good option as the police and court functions have been operating out of substandard facilities for years and construction inflation will reduce a significant amount of planned savings should the project be delayed.
FISCAL EFFECTS: Previous City budgets have included a total of $1.8M for the purchase of
property, initial site improvements, and preliminary design of the Facility. With the execution of the land exchange with MDT and the completion of design work to get us to the ballot measures, we anticipate utilizing the full amount budgeted. The current budget includes the estimated election costs
to put the Facility questions on the ballot for City voters in November. Additional spending will only
occur if voters approve the ballot measure(s) to construct and operate the facility.
191
Page 8 of 8
1. If approved by the voters, construction of the facility would be financed through the sale of bonds. It is anticipated that bonds would be sold in one or more series, with debt payments
charged to voters on their November 2015 tax bills (FY16 Budget.)
2. If approved by the voters, the operating levy would take effect to coincide with the facility
opening in 2016. This would likely be included in the FY17 Budget and be charged to voters on their November 2016 tax bills.
Attachments: Attachment A Thinkone/Langlas Project Cost Tracking Attachment B AMD Presentation Materials
Report compiled on: 7-16-2014
192
7/15/2014 - 3:31 PM
Page #1 of 2
Project Cost Tracking - Design Development
Bozeman Police Department and Municipal Courts
7/15/2014
Project Building Area:65,790 gsf
Primary 55,220
Secondary 10,570
Site area:361,548 sf
8.3 acres
ITEM COST NOTES
Design Development Estimate
total unit
$$/sf of const.total yes no
Land Acquisition $936,507 14.23$ 0.0%3.7%x
Professional Services $2,137,320 32.49$ 11.4%8.4%
Programming, Architecture & Engineering $1,635,000 24.85$ 8.70%
Pre-bond A/E fees (30% design)$710,000 10.79$ x
Post-bond A/E fees $925,000 14.06$ x
MEP Commissioning Services $95,660 1.45$ 0.51%
Pre-bond fees (30% design)$15,000 x
Post-bond & Post Const. fees $80,660 x
Geotech Services $12,000 0.18$ 0.06%x
Surveying & Utility Locate Services $14,000 0.21$ 0.07%x
Inspections, testing, reviews $175,000 2.66$ 0.93%x
Closeout & Warranty Services $0 -$ Included in Commissioning Budget
Inspection & Testing Services $125,000 1.90$
Permit Plan Review $50,000 0.76$
CMAR Conceptual Precon Services $60,000 0.91$
Pre-bond fees (30% design)$25,000 x
Post-bond & fees $35,000 x
Prof. services / Soft Cost contingency $50,000 0.76$ 0.27%x
Infrastructure $263,000 4.00$ 1.4%1.0%
Water & Sewer Taps $0 -$ 0.00%x Included in General Construction
Irrigation Well Installation $28,000 0.43$ 0.15%x
Electrical Service (Fees, Meter, Install) $20,000 0.30$ 0.11%x
Underground Electrical on Rouse $150,000 2.28$ 0.80%May not be possible - site contingency
Natural Gas Service $20,000 0.30$ 0.11%x
Communications Service $15,000 0.23$ 0.08%x
Cable Television Service $0 -$ 0.00%x Installed at no cost by provider
Satellite Television Service $0 -$ 0.00%x Not Included
Fiber Optic Service $30,000 0.46$ 0.16%x From vault near EOC (400 feet)
FFE, Other Equipment $1,370,606 20.83$ 7.3%5.4%
Fixtures & Furniture by Owner $891,250 12.00$ 4.74%x
General Office Furniture, etc.$450,000
Audio Visual Equip. (PD and Community)$109,000
Audio Visual Equip. (Municipal Courts)$332,250
Specialized Furniture: Courtrooms $100,000 35.00$ x
Head end equipment by I.T. Dept. $278,356 3.00$ 1.48%x cost includes head-end IT equipment only
Equipment by PD $98,000 1.49$ 0.52%x
Includes Interview Room Recording, in-building
wireless system
Equipment for MC $3,000 0.05$ 0.02%x Includes signalling system for Judge and Clerk
Construction $18,788,495 285.58$ 7-14-14 est.73.5%x 7-14-14 estimate numbers
Building $16,849,291 256.11$ See Langlas Estimate
Site $1,939,204 29.48$ See Langlas Estimate
bond $%
193
7/15/2014 - 3:31 PM
Page #2 of 2
Contingencies/Impact Fees/Other $2,076,383 18.28$ 11.1%8.1%
Proposed Escal. Cont. @ 14 months (3.5%)$657,597 x
Design Development Contingency $583,383 8.87$ 3.00%x Total Contingencies
Construction Contingency $600,884 9.13$ 3.00%x $1,841,864
Targeted Northwest Energy Rebates -$70,000
LEED Project Registration $4,518
Registration Fee $900 x
Certification Paperwork $3,618 x
Site Demo./site cleanup $100,000 0.28$ 0.53%x
Assume (2) storage buildings removed - project
site
Site Impact Fees $200,000 0.55$ 1.06%x Sewer and water utilities in place - primarily
street impact fees.
Total: Project Costs $25,572,311 100.0%
General Fund $1,809,067
Bond-funded costs $23,763,244
194
City of Bozeman Municipal Courts and Police Facility | Presentation to the City Commission I 1
City of Bozeman Police Headquarters & Municipal Courts
Presentation to the City Commission
July 21, 2014
195
City of Bozeman Municipal Courts and Police Facility | Presentation to the City Commission I 2
•Sizing a New Facility
•Building Program
•Project Themes
•Site Context and Building Organization
•Building Design
•Project Cost and Schedule
•Q + A
AGENDA 196
City of Bozeman Municipal Courts and Police Facility | Presentation to the City Commission I 4 L&J Center Site Analysis (1996) Law and Justice Center Building Analysis (1998) Gallatin County / Bozeman Criminal Justice Space and Facilities Report (2004 - Carter Goble Lee) Bozeman, Montana Police Department - Patrol Staffing And Deployment Study (2007 - Etico Solutions, Inc.) Bozeman Police and Municipal Courts Needs Assessment and Facilities Plan (2007 - CGL) Gallatin County and City of Bozeman Master Planning for Law and Justice Site (2008 – Dowling, Sandholm Architects) Gallatin County Law and Justice Center Campus Master Plan (2011 – Prugh + Lenon) 1995 2000 2005 Recommendation (2007):
53,800 gsf building
Recommendation (2011):
56,500 gsf building*
* City portion of shared facility 2010 Current Phase
(2013): MDT site
selection, program
update, building
design
WHERE WE’VE BEEN 197
City of Bozeman Municipal Courts and Police Facility | Presentation to the City Commission I 5
27,509
50,463
67,831
89,513 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 22,660
37,280
24,000
29,000
45,000
6,000 8,000 8,700 SIZE OF CURRENT FACILITY: 16,000 sf
JUSTIFYING NEED 198
City of Bozeman Municipal Courts and Police Facility | Presentation to the City Commission I 8
4300 sf
4800 sf 100 33,000 sf
(2007)
2000 sf
(2007)
3100 sf
(2007)
12,200 sf
(2007)
2800 sf
(2007)
800 sf
(2007) 600* 850* 550* * Estimated City portion of shared area
** Total includes shared bldg support areas
53,800 gsf**
(2007) 16,000 sf**
Police
Records
Evidence
Courts
City Attorney
Victim’s Serv.
Total
2007 NEEDS ASSESSMENT REPORT 199
City of Bozeman Municipal Courts and Police Facility | Presentation to the City Commission I 9 100 33,000 sf
(2007)
30,400 sf
(2011)
2000 sf
(2007)
2800 sf*
(2011)
3100 sf
(2007)
3900 sf*
(2011)
12,200 sf
(2007)
17,500 sf
(2011)
2800 sf
(2007)
3000 sf
(2011)
800 sf
(2007)
4500 sf*
(2011)
4300 sf
4800 sf 600* 850* 550* 53,800 gsf
(2007) 16,000 sf** 56,500 gsf**
(2011)
Police
Records
Evidence
Courts
City Attorney
Victim’s Serv.
Total
* Estimated City portion of shared area
** Total includes shared bldg support areas
2011 NEEDS ASSESSMENT REPORT 200
City of Bozeman Municipal Courts and Police Facility | Presentation to the City Commission I 12
#1) RIGHT-SIZING CURRENT FACILITY
#2) ADDING PROGRAM ELEMENTS
MISSING IN CURRENT FACILITY
#3) ACCOUNTING FOR FUTURE
GROWTH:
•Plan for PD staffing to increase
more than 50% and Courts staff to
increase over 40% by 2034 600* 850* 100 550* 2800 sf
(#3)
2350 sf
(#1,#2,#3)
32,000 sf
(#3)
16,500 sf
(#3)
4300 sf
4800 sf
28,400 sf
(#2)
16,400 sf
(#1)
900 sf
(#1)
1200 sf
(#2 + #3 )
3300 sf
(#1)
4300 sf
(#2 + #3)
12,750 sf
(#1)
16,000 sf
(#2)
2700 sf
(#2)
850 sf
(#1)
36,700 gsf**
(#1)
55,000 gsf
(#2) 16,000 sf** 36,700 gsf
(#1)
59,240 gsf
(#3)
Police
Records
Evidence
Courts
City Attorney
Victim’s Serv.
Total
PROGRAM NEEDS JUSTIFICATION: PROVIDE FOR FUTURE GROWTH 201
City of Bozeman Municipal Courts and Police Facility | Presentation to the City Commission I 13 100 4300
4800 600* 850* 550* 1200
(2014)
4300
(2014)
2800
(2014)
2350
(2014)
32,000
(2014)
16,500
(2014)
59,240 gsf 16,000 sf**
Recommendation (2007):
53,800 gsf building
Recommendation (2011):
56,500 gsf building*
Police
Records
Evidence
Courts
City Attorney
Victim’s Serv.
Total
PROGRAM (2014): GSF VS. CURRENT AREA 202
City of Bozeman Municipal Courts and Police Facility | Presentation to the City Commission I 15
EXAMPLE
Legend
Net Square Footage
Building Common Areas, Support
Space, Wall Thicknesses, Shaft Space
Gross Square Footage +
EXAMPLE OF ASSIGNABLE VS. GROSS SQUARE FEET 203
City of Bozeman Municipal Courts and Police Facility | Presentation to the City Commission I 16
SUMMARY OF PROGRAM: MARCH 2014 204
City of Bozeman Municipal Courts and Police Facility | Presentation to the City Commission I 19
Civic Building
Public Safety
Supporting Our Officers
Building Density
Sustainability
Long Term Operational Costs
Planning for Future Growth
Transformation of the Northeast Neighborhood
Community
Adaptability
Flexible Workspaces
Judicious
Utilitarian
Efficient
Highly Functional
PROGRAM THEMES 205
City of Bozeman Municipal Courts and Police Facility | Presentation to the City Commission I 26
Potential Streamline
Transit Station?
SITE TRANSPORTATION 206
City of Bozeman Municipal Courts and Police Facility | Presentation to the City Commission I 31
•Front door on Rouse
•Prominence of Oak/Rouse
intersection
•Views to northeast
•Secure yard and public parking
•PD access to three streets ROUSE PUBLIC EDGE Secure Yard Site Entrance
TAMARACK
PRIMARY SITE INFLUENCES 207
City of Bozeman Municipal Courts and Police Facility | Presentation to the City Commission I 32
•One vs. two story
•Building / parking layouts
•Lobby orientation
•Two story bldg was chosen
in the interest of urban
density, and to preserve land
for future development
•Two story bldg will increase
overall project cost but is
well worth it
PREFFERED SCHEME
ALTERNATIVE SCHEMES: PROGRAM + SITE ORGANIZATION STUDIES
A D G
H B E
C F
208
City of Bozeman Municipal Courts and Police Facility | Presentation to the City Commission I 33
N
OAK ST. ROUSE AVE. •Front door on Rouse
•Police vehicle access: three streets
•Public vehicle access off Rouse
•Building presence on Oak and Rouse
•Secure yard protected by building
•Southern exposure for parking
•Two story primary building along Rouse
•One story utilitarian secondary building off
secure yard
•Public lobby on Rouse and adjacent to public
parking
•Community room off public lobby with
southern exposure to allow for outdoor
gathering
•PD on ground floor to enable direct access to
secure yard
•Elevate main public functions (Courts) to
second floor to allow for views
SITE ORGANIZATION 209
City of Bozeman Municipal Courts and Police Facility | Presentation to the City Commission I 34
Community Room
Public Lobby
PD Records
Building Support
PD Support Services
PD Investigations
PD Shared Support
Lockers / Exercise
Training
Room
Evidence
Sally Port
PD Patrol
PD Admin
Victims
Services
PLAN ORGANIZATION: LEVEL ONE 210
City of Bozeman Municipal Courts and Police Facility | Presentation to the City Commission I 35
Public Lobby
Clerks Queuing Space
Courts Shared
Conference Rooms
Building Support
Courtroom
City Attorney
Clerks
Courts Offices &
Support
Hearing Room and
Jury Waiting (Future
Courtroom)
Security Point
Courtroom Waiting
PLAN ORGANIZATION: LEVEL TWO 211
City of Bozeman Municipal Courts and Police Facility | Presentation to the City Commission I 36
Building Support
Courtrooms
Skylights
PLAN ORGANIZATION: MECHANICAL PENTHOUSE + ROOFTOP 212
City of Bozeman Municipal Courts and Police Facility | Presentation to the City Commission I 37
Municipal Courts
PD Secondary
Fitness/Lockers
Police HQ
Victim Services (L1)
City Attorney (L2)
Public Lobby
Community Room
Secure Yard
Public Parking
PLAN ORGANIZATION: BUILDING MASSING
NORTH
213
City of Bozeman Municipal Courts and Police Facility | Presentation to the City Commission I 38
Municipal Courts
PD Secondary
Fitness/Lockers
Police HQ
Victim Services (L1)
City Attorney (L2)
Public Lobby
Community Room
Secure Yard
PLAN ORGANIZATION: BUILDING MASSING
NORTH
Public Parking
214
City of Bozeman Municipal Courts and Police Facility | Presentation to the City Commission I 40
View of Main Entry from southeast
215
City of Bozeman Municipal Courts and Police Facility | Presentation to the City Commission I 41
View of Northeast corner of building from intersection of Rouse & Oak
216
City of Bozeman Municipal Courts and Police Facility | Presentation to the City Commission I 43
View from across Rouse of east façade
217
City of Bozeman Municipal Courts and Police Facility | Presentation to the City Commission I 45
View of main entry at night
218
City of Bozeman Municipal Courts and Police Facility | Presentation to the City Commission I 49
Combination of Resources:
•Langlas in-house Estimating
•Current Material / Labor Pricing
•Current Subcontractor Pricing for Major Scopes
•Comparison to Recent Project Bids and
Historical Costs
Iterative Process throughout Schematic Design
and Early Design Development
COST METHODOLOGY 219
City of Bozeman Municipal Courts and Police Facility | Presentation to the City Commission I 51
ITEM COST COST/SF
Land Acquisition $ 1,000,000
Construction Costs $ 18,788,495
•Building Construction $ 16,849,291 $256.11/sf
•Site Construction $ 1,939,204 $29.48/sf
Site Infrastructure $ 263,000
FFE / Other Equipment $ 1,370,606
Professional Services $ 2,137,320
Contingencies/Impact Fees/Other $ 2,076,383
•Escalation @ 3.5% $ 657,597
•Design Contingency @ 3% $ 583,383
•Owner Contingency @ 3% $ 600,884
•Impact Fees $ 200,000
•Other $ 34,519
Total Project Related Costs $ 25,635,804
•General Fund Costs ($ 1,872,560)
Bond-Funded Costs $ 23,763,244
COST MODEL 220
City of Bozeman Municipal Courts and Police Facility | Presentation to the City Commission I 52
COST BY DEPARTMENT 221
City of Bozeman Municipal Courts and Police Facility | Presentation to the City Commission I 54
PROJECT SCHEDULE 222