The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About46-Council Office } POLICE BUILDING AD HOC COMMITTEE September 29, 1988 Councilwoman Esther R. Estrada - Chairwoman Councilman Michael Maudsley Councilman Tom Minor Chief Donald Burnett - Police Department Captain Dave Thomas - Police Department John Hoeger - RDA Development Division Manager Gene Klatt - Assistant City Engineer Diane Roth - Deputy city Attorney Valerie Ross - Planning Department Garner Grayson III - Consultant stanley A. Helfand - Consultant Phil Arvizo - Council Executive Assistant The Committee discussed the issue of continuing to explore other sites now that Public Enterprise Center #2 is in the process of being sold. Although there is still a slim possibility that this area would be made available for bid to the City, the Committee recommended that the consultant finalize his draft and provide a proposed cost for exploring additional sites, on a site-by-site basis. The Committee requested that all parties review the preliminary draft of the consultant's report and input their comments to Mr. Klatt so he could consolidate, present to the Committee within two weeks, present to the full Council after that review and, subsequently, provide to the consultant for their perusal and final draft if no major problems are encountered. During the interim period. staff (police-RDA-Planning- Engineering) will explore and identify possible sites, obtain aerial photos and maps, provide any environmental problems and,i if in RDA areas, provide an. overlay. The consultant cautioned everyone to not reject sites of less than 12 acres - to look for sites between 8 to 12 acres. Meeting adjourned. submitted, Esther R. Estrada ERE: j v :::' ;/ I / I (:/ \L' TRANSIT TIME COST ANALYSIS In order to provide additional input into the facility cost analysis, an 'indexed' Transit Cost Analysis was developed which compared the relative costs associated with transportation time and vehicle maintenance costs anticipated to occur between the seven alternative sites and the County Jail, Courts, City Hall and the geographical center of each of the City's, six patrol beats. By attaching arbitrary dollar rates which were kept constant for each site ($20 per hour for officer wages and sot per mile for vehicle maintenance) to measured distances between the sites and the above described destinations, a sca 1 ed compari son of costs was calculated. In other words the resultant relationship of costs between sites would not change regardless if staff costs or ma i ntenance costs were actually higher or lower than the numbers used in this analysis. Rather the numerical value would increase or decrease proportionately for all sites. Mathmatically, the Transit Time Cost Model involved applying an average speed of travel against the distance being traveled to generate an amount of time traveled. This time factor was then multiplied by the number of officers in the vehicle (2), and the number of oaily trips in order to derive the daily cost of traveling from each site to specific locations. Combined with this figure was a maintenance cost associated with driving to each location. .. As can be observed in Table 1, the base assumption of this model included 20 daily trips from the new Pol ice Headquarters Facility to both the Jail and Courts Facility and 10 daily trips to City Hall. phk/sbpd/transit2 1 w In developing an annualized Transit Time Cost comparison, it was also assumed that trips to Court and City Hall would occur five days per week, 52 weeks a year, while trips to jail would occur seven days per week, 52 weeks a year. Costs assoc i ated with movement to the di fferent patrol beats 1 nvol ved calculating the distance between the sites to each patrol beat. The distance was then weighted to account for actual staffing differences in each beat. As a result of these calculations the Baseline and F location was determined to have the least associated transit cost. The Highland and Western location, on the other hand was calculated to have a relative cost 41.11 greater than the Baseline and F site. Table 2, located on the following page provides the annualized transit cost associated with each of the seven alternative sites. phk/sbpd/transit2 2 TABLE 1 ANNUALIZED TRANSIT TIME COST COMPARISON CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO POLICE DEPARTMENT HEADQUARTERS FACILITY RELATIVE RELATIVE INDEXED PERCENTAGE SITE LOCATION COSTS DIFFERENCES Baseline & E $237,000 - 0 - F & 8th $249,500 5.31 greater Waterman & 7th $250,000 5.51 greater Arrowhead & Rialto $255,000 7.61 greater F & Rialto $265,000 11.81 greater Davidson & 27th $317,000 33.81 greater Highland & Western $334,500 41.11 greater phk/SBDP/transit 3 .,. ... z ... E ... a: - &. ... a: ... z ... ~ ~ :> ... ~i! ... "'~ i >--' -'-~ i~-I:Z: t; W't .... 85... -- w.... ac !i!! ~ Q N....W't~ -cow ....'" U -JZ"'~- ~~W't~5 ........iiu~ >- .... - -' - ~ "" "" 1It1lt1lt001lt.'" 'N . .",. 00 . .... "'. lit 1It"'1It lit . ...... eN eN M ".'00' N lit ... eno !C .... III .... ~U ....l 2 IItIltMIltNOOIIt .....N... ~ 0.2 N - . lit lit lit lit "'''' N..... .N.......... 'N M. N.. III '" '" lit lit lit '" . ................ 00 'M --- c "''''... lit'" NIIt ..... N..... N '" ... 00 en A. - Ill: I- 0000000 NNNNNNN I-l Ill:E ~ U lit lit lit '" '" '" '" NMMMMM . ... M en .... ....l - E en A. - ....llll: ....ll- ~- l >oE I- - U ."....."'..........~'" 0000000 ........................... lit '" lit lit '" '" lit NNMMMM . ... M en .... -J - E lC - Ill: ... N '" N '" '" '" '" 00";' 0000000 NNNNNNN l -JE - C .., 001lt1lt00'" MMMMMM . N M tit !AI -' - E ~"',,!,,!N\O,,! ,.,...... - ! - g -J !AI .... - en ~ I ....l !AI ~~ ~5 !AI ..... N:II . . 0.. ~;I~~~~ ~.~1.;:3 &I""i~",,!;: ~ ..... ... .... - ~ ... ... . a. ... ... .. "" C o ... ... .. ... a. .. J"':" M ~ "".. .. .... ... ...... 0"" ",c .0 ... ... c... .. ""a. ""N - . ~GI a.- .. ...-- f: G\- ... .... .&: ...>. .... .0- . ... .. .... ." -... ..00 .. 00 ...- .l"'~ ... ..... ~...~ 0...01 ~c- ,.... "'U"A . .... .~5it . . ........ ~ ClIO u............ _00 ... -:......1: .....z::. . AO.... ..- U i -;t8.'i c.. . u.. .. ..0 C ..0 ... A.N "_M .. ...C:I ... .u... ~l':;~.1 . -u .tt:I.: i38.S'. o~....u.!t:. ................ 0 . O..~.UA. .... ~ ~I....~~. -.......1.18 t......... =.1 I l'f'f ~"''''M''''' ................ ....CCCAoA. . .... _NM.IltOO SITE COST ANALYSIS A Site Cost Analysis, which incorporated capital costs, land acquisition costs, administrative and 'soft' costs, and related transit costs was prepared for Site l.-F and 8th Street, Site 2.-F and Rialto, and Site 3.-Highland and Western locations. A larger hypothetical twelve acre site was also 'costed-out' in order to provide a comparative basis for the various hard costs of the three preferred sites. Initially, acreage requirements of the various sites were converted into total gross square feet (GSF), net-to-gross building efficiencies ranging from 80% to 86% were established and building construction costs were identified to reflect costs associated with different sized sites. The site program or property GSF was then subdivided to reflect the square footage necessary to accommodate bull di ng footpri nt, surface parki ng and pad, parki ng structure footprint, buildi ng setback, and landscapi ng requi rements. As can be observed on line 13 of the Site Cost Analysis, Table 3, the total site program ranged from a low of 138,085 GSF required in Site 1 to as much as 522,720 GSF in the hypothetical site. After developing the surface parking pad and parking structure footprint, the parking structure size in GSF was calculated. In Sites 1 and 2, a total of 287,496 GSF were calculated to acconmodate site-wide parking requirements. This represented a six story parking structure in Site 1 t and a five story structure in Site 2. Site 3 required a 3-leve1 parking structure totaling 126,000 GSF. phk/sbpd/sb 5 The parking structures and surface parking costs were then calculated at a rate of $3.50 per gross square foot for surface parking stalls and $22.00 per GSF for structure/parking stalls. Building construction costs were calculated on the basis of between $100 and $110 per gross square foot. In addition to parking and construction costs, a site development cost of $2.00 per gross square foot and a landscaping allowance were applied against each site. Furniture, fixtures and equipment (FF&E) costs were calculated at a rate of $28.00 per net square foot. After calculating capital costs and associated land acquisition costs, a 20 percent factor was applied to the combined capital and land acquisition costs to represent the administration and 'soft' costs of completing the project. Also included in the Site Cost Analysis were comparative annual transit time costs associated with moving officers between the various sites and the court, jail, city hall, and the six police beats. The total Present Value life Cycle Cost (PVlCC) encompasses the addition of the 10 year life cycle cost analysis for transit costs plus the administrative and 'soft' costs, FF&E costs, land acquisition costs, and building construction costs. Since we have included the annual transit time cost factor, which reflects arbitrary dollar rates, it should be noted that modifications to the transit time cost model may either increase or decrease the final cost numbers. However, any changes to the transit time cost analysis will result in phk/sbpd/sb 6 proportional changes to the various sites. Consequently, line 29 of Table 3 prov1des a comparative means to review the three sites and the hypothetical site for total costs. phk/sbpd/sb 7 TABLE ] C I n Of 1M IERIIARD 110 POliCE DEPARTMENT HEADQUARTERS FACILITY SITE COST AKALYSIS ..- T....Z.................................................................................................. SITE 1 SITE 2 SITE] HYPOTHETICAL 1. Acres 2. Grosa Square Feet- Property 3. luilding Net Square Feet 4. let To Gross Efficiency 5. luilding Gross Square Feet (3/4) 6. Land Cost Per GSF-Property 7. Property Acquisition Cost (2 x 6) 8. luilding Construction Cost 5/GSF 9. SUppl..-ntal Offsite Property-GSF 10. Off.ite Land Acquisition Cost-5/GSF 11. Off.ite Land Coat 12. Site progr. 12A. Iui lding Footprint 121. Surface Plrking and Pad 12C. 'arteing Structure Footprint 120. luilding Setback 1ZE. L.-dscaping - 101 Site 13. TOTAL SITE PROGRAM 14. Three Level Parking Structure-GSF 15. Four Level Parking Structure-GSF 16. Five/Six Level Parking Structure-GSF 17 Parting Coats 17A. Surface Stalls a 53.50/GSF x 12B 171. Structure Stalls a 522.oo/GSF x 14,15,16 18. Site Development- 52.oo/GSF (12d+12e) 19. Lardseaping Cost (Allowance) 20. Building Cost (5 x 8) 21. FF & E- 52S/NSF 22. Capital Costs (17A+171+1S+19+20+21) 23. Land Acquisition Costa (7+1" 24. Slbtoul 25. ~inistration & Softcosts-2OX of 24 26. Slbtotal (24+25) 27. Aln.al Transit Ti_ Cost 28. Ten Year Life Cycle Cost (27 x 1Oyears) 29. Total PVLCC (26 + za ) ,..- 2.07 90,169 122,301 0.80 152,876 53.OS 52n,n1 5110 47,916 53.13 5149,9n 38,219 20,352 47,908 22,589 9,017 138,OS5 287,496 571,232 56,324,912 163,212 5400,000 516,816,388 53,424,428 527,1OO,1n 5427,698 527,527,870 55,505,574 533,033,444 5249,500 52,495,000 Sl5,528,444 4.27 186,001 122,301 0.82 149,148 $9.00 S1 ,674,01 1 S105 55,000 21,112 57,499 33,790 18,600 186,001 287,496 S73,892 56,324,912 S104,780 S5OO,000 S15,66O,494 53,424,428 526,088,506 S1,674,011 527,762,517 55,552,503 533,315,020 5265,000 52,650,000 Sl5, 965,020 ==~2==ZZ==.:aa.===========================za==z..=:azs:a===&&:==azzaza 8 8.60 374,616 122,301 0.84 145,596 S5.OO S1,873,080 5100 55,000 191,678 42,000 48,476 37,462 374,616 126,000 5670,873 52, m,ooo S171,875 S6OO,ooo 514,559,643 53,424,428 522,198,819 51,873,080 524,071,899 54,814,380 528,886,279 5334,500 53,345,000 $32,231,279 12.00 522,720 122,301 0.86 142,210 56.00 53,136,320 S100 55,000 320,000 o 60,420 87,300 522,720 S1,120,000 SO S295,44O S700,ooo 514,221,047 53,424,428 519,760,915 53,136,320 522,897,235 54,579,447 527,476,681 5400,000 54,000,000 Sl1,476,681 ...----=................. OS-Sep-as City of San Bernardino Police Department New Headquarters Facility jHypothetical Site Exhibit 1 .-r;l#'~ -~ -- l~ ~Ner ~Et -- -- ... ., -It IIlO ~ 9 ST8NMANN . GRAYSON. SMYUE ':JTY OF SAN .JE~d\JARDINO - .ilEMORANDU~ pf~ '5 ROGER G. HARDGRAVE, ITTr. From Pub 1 i cWo r k s / C i t yEn g . Da~ September 2, 1988 File No. 6.51-8 COUNCILWOMAN ESTRADA - Chairwoman Police To Facility Ad Hoc Committee Subject Site Selection Approved Date Attached is a copy of the latest information submitted by the Consultant with respect to the three sites selected for review. The cover letter and the attached information discuss the questions raised at the last Committee meeting. At your request, a meeting has been scheduled for September 9, 1988, at 9:00 a.m., in the Council Conference Room for a brief presentation by the Consultant and questions about this document and its contents. By copy of this memo. the other members of Committee are notified of the meeting and are attend or to have a representative present. the Ad Hoc requested to ROGER G. HARDGRAVE Director of Public Works/City Engineer ( " '-j" /' / / '~.~ '-, ' "'(. ,/ /l /7- - :::-..1...-. / ~"";:':;/' .; GENE R. KLATT Assistant City Engineer GRK:pa cc: Councilman Maudsley - Ward 4 Councilman Minor - Ward 5 Jim Robbins, Acting City Administrator Jim Richardson, Deputy City Administrator/Development Craig Graves, City Treasur~r Richard Bennecke. Exec. Asst. to Mayor / Phil Arvizo. Exec. Asst. tb Council Chief Burnett i Chief Moon . Andrew Green. Acting Director - Finance Michael Loehr, Acting Dir~ctor - Planning ~~.~t'-~ .... -. ..... .. ", .-".- . .-- ;-. r-"~'_J' _.;-.~ ":,.::' :< ~ :,~b2_~;~;.::~'~~~1