Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/17/2007, BUS 3 - PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS AND EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER IMPROVEMENTS • U council M�D� 4-17-07 acEnaa acpopt '�-N 3 CITY O F SAN LUIS OBISPO FROM: Bill Statler, Director of Finance & Information Technology SUBJECT: PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS AND EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER IMPROVEMENTS CAO RECOMMENDATION Approve the site plan and design for the public safety communications and emergency operation center improvements and the related implementing actions set forth in this report. REPORT-IN-BRIEF The Very Short Story. Reliable emergency communications for our first-responders in police, fire, public works and utilities are essential in meeting our "mission-critical" public safety obligations to the community. Due to inadequate facilities and obsolete equipment, our current system simply isn't reliable. Because of new and increased service requirements combined with obsolescence and related unavailability of replacement parts, this problem will get geometrically worse as time goes by. And as discussed further in this report, even with the actions recommended at this time, it will be almost two more years before this already bad situation will be improved. In addition to taking longer than we would like, providing adequate facilities for our emergency communication operations that make sense now and in the future will also be more expensive than we would like: $6.4 million versus a current project budget of $2.9 million. However, we have extensively analyzed a wide range of options, taken a sharp pencil to project costs and concluded that the proposed improvements are the wisest use of our limited resources in meeting both our immediate and longer term needs for reliable emergency communications. Storage Facility Alternative. From a programming perspective, the workscope for the public safety emergency communications center has not changed since Council approval of this project in March 2005. However, in preparing the site planning for this project, the opportunity surfaced to address long-standing storage needs for the Fire Department. While not directly tied to work on the emergency communications center, building these two projects at the same time will result in significantly lower costs for the storage facility and less disruption to Fire Station No. 1 operations than if it was built at a later time as a separate project. In short, this is our best opportunity to address Fire Department storage needs in the most efficient and cost effective manner. As such, while it will add costs to an already expensive project ($450,000), we believe that this is the best course of action in meeting Fire Department needs on this site in both the short and Iona-term. We recommend including this storage facility in the bid package as an "additive alternative," which will allow us flexibility in separately evaluating the cost of this facility and awarding the construction contract. C � Public Safety Communications and Emergency Operations Center Improvements Page 2 Overall Improvements to Our Emergency Operations Center. While the focus in this report is on improvements to our public safety emergency communications center (dispatch center), the fact is that the proposed workscope will results in overall improvements to our emergency operations center (EOC), which is located at Fire Station No. 1. These will not only improve our emergency communications at the dispatch center, but they will improve security at the site, make emergency supplies easier to organize and access, free-up bay space for emergency vehicles and improve the site for staging emergency vehicles in the event of a major disaster. DISCUSSION Background Along with planned improvements to our radio system, the dispatch center project is the highest- priority technology project in the City, and has been since March 2001 when the Council adopted the 2001-05 Information Technology Strategic Plan. Separate But Interrelated Projects Concurrently with the dispatch center project, we Both projects are essential in protecting will make significant improvements to our radio our community by providing our first- system. While these two projects are separate responders in Police, Fire, Public Works and distinct in their needs and solutions, there and Utilities with the reliable emergency are significant technology interdependencies. Stated simply, the dispatch center needs to be communications that they require on a linked to our radio system; and the radio system day-to-day basis. also needs significant improvements. Additionally, the radio and dispatch We are further along in our plans for the radio Y p system upgrade:the project is fully funded ($4.1 system also support users in Community million); and the Council approved the plans and Development and Parks & Recreation in specifications for this project in March 2005. their day-to-day operations; and in However, construction of the dispatch center is disaster response situations, staff in these the "critical path" driver for radio system two departments also become emergency improvements for three reasons. responders. 1. It will be much more cost effective to install the radio links in the new dispatch center, On March 15, 2005, the Council took a rather than having to then relocate them comprehensive look at both of the shortly thereafter. dispatch center and radio system projects, 2. There is simply not adequate space for the and approved plans and funding for both new radio equipment at the Police.Station of them. As discussed in the sidebar (which is one of the reasons among many for chart, planning for the radio system building a new center at Fire Station No. 1), improvements is well underway: the especially since both the old and new system project is fully funded; and the Council will need to be operational during the conversion. approved the plans and specifications for these improvements at the March 2005 3. Placing the new radio equipment in the new meeting. dispatch center will minimize operational impacts during the conversion. �-a Public Safety Communications and Emergency Operations Center Improvements Page 3 Accordingly, while the radio system improvements are an integral part of overall plan in meeting our emergency communication needs, the focus of this report is the on the construction of the dispatch center. Need for Dispatch Center Improvements As noted above, replacing the public safety dispatch system is one of the highest priorities in the 2001-05 IT Strategic Plan. While there are many reasons for this, the key driver is that the existing dispatch center console is over twenty years old and no longer reliable; and because it is technologically obsolete, replacement parts are no longer made by its manufacturer(Motorola). This is compounded by dispatch workloads that are much higher than they were when the current system was installed over twenty years ago. In short, this "mission-critical" emergency dispatch center urgently needs to be replaced and upgraded: an up-to-date, dependable dispatch center is critical to the City's basic, public safety mission; and the existing dispatch center has outgrown its current basement location within the Police Station. A recent analysis of long-term police space needs recommends building a new station at another site, rather than adding onto the current facility. However, given the land and construction costs of a new headquarters police station facility, and the current economic situation, this is unlikely to occur in the foreseeable future. For this reason, any "interim" space solution for public safety dispatching needs to make sense for the next ten to twenty years (and perhaps longer). Dispatch Center Site Options At the March 2005 meeting, the Council comprehensively reviewed a number of options for meeting the facility needs of our emergency communication operations, including:. 1. Police Station Remodel 2. 1016 Walnut (New Building Adjacent to the Police Station) 3. City Hall (Remodel of Downstairs Space) 4. Corporation Yard (New Building) 5. Fire Station No. 1 (Approved Project Location) All of these options shared the following drawbacks in varying degrees: interim solution; limited options for future growth; and no back-up center. However, after considering in detail all of the pros and cons of each option, the Council selected Fire Station No. 1 as the best site option. Unique advantages of this option include: 1. This is already a"24/7" public safety site. 2. There is a close, day-to-day working relationship between fire staff and the dispatchers. 2 • Public Safety Communications and Emergency Operations Center Improvements Page 4 3. It was the most cost-effective option. The cost of building a new center would be the same at all sites. And largely due to the costs of remodeling a 35-year building (and related problems with electrical systems and meeting ADA requirements), this option was slightly less expensive than remodeling the Police Station. Given similar costs, other advantages included: adding building space with a new center, rather than adding no additional space (other than an elevator shaft) at an already crowded Police Station; better meeting our emergency response needs by designing a facility for this purpose rather than rehabbing an existing one; and logistical issues in operating the existing center while major construction work would be in progress. The only downside of this option compared with continuing to locate dispatch at the Police Station is the separation of the dispatch function from other Police operations. While this is a significant concern, the Police Department believes that it is offset in light of the other compelling advantages of this option and the design features of the proposed center: This continues to be the right path. Even though the cost is higher than we estimated in March 2005, all of the reasons for building a new center at the Fire Station No. 1 site identified at that time continue to support this option as the most cost-effective one in meeting our emergency communication needs. Dispatch Center Design Space Needs At the March 2005 meeting, the Council conceptually approved a3,044 square foot facility at the Fire Station No.I site based on a detailed analysis by the architect (RRM Design Group) and staff of space needs for the center that would support operational requirements for at least the next ten years. In anticipating future needs, we analyzed dispatch staffing levels for the past 15 years, and call statistics for the past three years. Based on this information, we believe the proposed dispatch center with six work stations will provide for our needs now and for the next ten years. Although the current minimum dispatch staffing is two employees per shift, there are many times when at least three are needed, and sometimes as many as five. Six work stations should adequately support these needs and allow for appropriate short-term growth, with one caveat: the unknown impact of transferring all "911-wireless" calls from the California Highway Patrol (CHP) to local dispatch centers. Unknown impact of 911-wireless calls. Currently, if someone calls 911 from a cellular phone, the call goes to the closest CHP dispatch center. The CHP dispatchers screen the calls and transfer those that are appropriate to the local police department. Beginning in 2007, 911 calls made from cellular phones will go to the local law enforcement agency where the caller is physically located. The CHP currently does a good job screening these calls and only transferring those that should be handled by our City police or fire. However, once �. • 0 Public Safety Communications and Emergency Operations Center Improvements Page 5 these calls no longer route through the CHP, they will all come to us,including 911 hand ups and multiple calls regarding the same incident. This will likely increase the workload of our dispatchers. Unfortunately, the CHP does not track how many cellular 911 calls they receive or transfer, so we are not able to accurately assess the count of how many calls are being transferred to our dispatch center. In short, we will not know the workload impact of this change until it happens. However, we have considered this factor in our planning based on available information, and the proposed center reflects our best judgment on our future dispatch needs. Proposed center size. The current proposal makes no changes to the March 2005 "program" with one exception: after we began detailed analyses of our radio, 9-1-1 system and computer aided dispatch requirements (and related electrical and mechanical requirements), it became clear that added space for these would be needed in supporting the operational requirements of the center. Accordingly, the proposed center includes added space of 578 square feet for Dispatch these purposes, for a total facility size of March 2005 3,622 square feet. The internal lay-out of the proposed facility is provided in Dispatch Floor 975 Attachment 1. Offices Supervisor 132 Watch Commander/Communications Mgr 132 Dispatch Center Site Plan and Design Officer Report Writing 100 Support Areas Provided in Attachment 2 is the Secured Entry 36 Ian and design Copy, Mail and Supplies 63 recommended site P gn Radio and Computer Room 323 (elevations) for the dispatch center. These Mechanical& Electrical 236 have been reviewed and approved by the Break/Kitchenette 156 Architectural Review Commission and Dayroom 150 Restrooms and Locker Room 344 Cultural Heritage Committee. Circulation @ 15% 397 Total _ 3,044 These reflect the "program" approved by the Council in March 2005, with the added space (578 square feet) to meet radio, computer, mechanical and electrical needs. Along with construction of the dispatch center, the site plan also reflects construction of an 80-foot radio tower on the site in accordance with the approved radio system project; reconfiguration of public and employee parking lots; and other site security improvements including gates, fencing and video camera system. Dispatch Center Project Costs The current project budget approved by the Council for the dispatch center is $2,884;300. As detailed below, the proposed project budget at $$6,484,000 is significantly greater than this. The following chart compares the current and proposed budget by key cost components. � -S 0 C Public Safety Communications and Emergency Operations Center Improvements Page 6 Pro'ect Cost Summa : Current and Proposed Bud et Description Current. Proposed _Dis atch.Buildin __---- __ 1,240,000 2,890,000 _ 1,65.0;000 Conceptual building size(3,044 square feet) 1,240,000 2,429,000 Increased building size(578 square feet) 311,000 Floor coverings 40,000 Security systems and access control 110,000 Site Improvements 232,900 1,505,000_ _ 1,272,100 Improvements 152,900 1,088,000 Radio tower 80,000 108,000 Expanded parking lot infrastructure 280,000 Fiber infrastructure 29,000 Furnishings and Equipment 406,900 _ _... 469,000_ 62,100 Computer-aided dispatch servers 122,000 Network switches 100,000 Dispatch consoles 135,000 Monitors 15,000 Time synchronization equipment 29,000 Copiers,printers and scanners 13,000 Logging recorder 40,000 Other equipment costs 15,000 Design and Inspection - ____ 628,300 994;000 365,700 Design Fees 323,300 492,000 168,700 Architectural engineering fees 456,000 Technology consultant 25,000 Other consultant fees 11,000 Construction Management&Inspection 305,000 502,000 197,000 Construction management&inspection 400,000 Geotechnical reports 10,000 Special inspections and material testing 92,000 Other Costs __ _ _ _.____ 201,000 201,000 Bidding: plans&specifications,advertsing 32,000 Technology installation services 50,000 Job trailer and phone 10,000 Moving costs 10,000 Relocation of AT&T 911 service 15,000 Relocation of AT&T regular phone service 5,000 -Utility hook-up fees 79,000 Contingency: 10% of Construction-Costs _ _ _ -1 376,2601 425,000 1 48,800 TOTAL 1 2 884 00 1 6 484 000 1 3 599 700 Key Cost Drivers. The following provides detailed explanations for each key variance: 1. Dispatch Center Building. There are two key factors driving the higher construction costs for the building: a. Construction costs in general are much higher today than they were two years ago when we prepared the current budget for this project. This reflects increased demand, both locally and globally, for the key construction materials we will use in this project, including petroleum-based products, steel, wood, copper and concrete. These construction cost increases are not unique to this project: they have become the "new 3 _fn 0 0 Public Safety Communications and Emergency Operations Center Improvements Page 7 normal" for both the private and public sector. This accounts for most of the building cost increase. b. As noted above, the original cost estimate was based on a facility of 3,044 square feet. However, in order to meet the center's operational support requirements for radios, computers, mechanical and electrical systems, we recommend adding 578 square feet for this purpose. This --Essential Services Buildings adds $311,000 to the project cost. Under the "Essential Services Buildings Seismic Safety Act of 1986," essential service It should also be noted that we have to buildings, which include fire stations, police build this facility in accordance with the stations, emergency operations centers or requirements for "essential services emergency communication dispatch centers, buildings" (see sidebar). This is not a must be capable of providing essential new factor in our planning for this services to the public after a disaster. project. However, it does mean that This means that both the structural systems construction cost increases have an even and non-structural components (such as greater impact on "essential services communications systems, main transformers, buildings" like our dispatch center than switching equipment and emergency backup other office or government buildings. systems) must be designed and constructed to minimize fire hazards and to resist, insofar 2Improvements. There are four as practical, the forces generated by . Site Im P earthquakes, gravity, and winds. factors driving higher costs for site improvements: This means that essential services buildings are typically designed to structural standards a. As with the building construction, that are twice those for standard governmental there have been significant cost or other office buildings. It also means that the design and inspection of essential services increases over the past two years in buildings are subject to added review general. As described below, procedures that must performed by qualified parking lot modifications are a large professionals to ensure that these standards component of the overall site are met. improvements. In achieving the higher standards specified for b. The initial cost estimate was this type of building, constructions costs are typically 50%to 150% more expensive than prepared before detailed soils that of a standard government office building, analyses were conducted at this site, depending on use and circumstances. and assumed "standard" soil conditions. However, there is a very high water table at this site; and in order to meet the structural requirements for essential services buildings, we need to excavate five feet of soil for the building foundation and refill and compact it. This added cost was not reflected in our initial cost estimates: it was simply too soon in the design process. c. The conceptual site plan in March 2005 included minor modifications to the parking immediately adjacent to the dispatch center. However, in meeting the needs of this facility both as our main fire station and emergency operations center (EOC), the project � — l • o Public Safety Communications and Emergency Operations Center Improvements Page 8 scope redevelops much of the site to include redesigned gate access at Roundhouse and Emily; additional parking spaces; an expansion of the back parking lot into the 30-foot area added to the site from the recent South Street abandonment strip; and a redesigned trash enclosure. The switchgear, transfer switch and generator were also upsized to service the entire EOC site rather than just the dispatch center. d. Increased construction costs have also increased the cost for the radio antenna tower, largely due to increased concrete costs for the tower foundation. 3. Furnishings and Equipment. The increased cost for fixtures, furnishings and equipment is due to the refinement of the technology systems during the design development phase. The key additions include the need for time synchronization and call-logging equipment, totaling $69,000. These are needed to ensure that the "time and date stamps" for all of the documentation—call recordings, computer-aided dispatch records —are accurate and in synch with each other. 4. Design and Inspection. We will see related increases in design costs from our architect (RRM Design Group) and construction management/inspection services from our construction manager(MarWal Construction) due to the changes in project scope. 5. Other Project Costs. These costs typically do not surface until the detailed design phase. 6. Construction Contingency. At 10% of construction costs, this represents a reasonable contingency for change orders during construction. Project Funding Sources The following summarizes current and proposed project funding sources. ProposedCurrent Pay-As-You-Go 175,000 175,000 - FEMA Grant 200,000 200,000 - Bond Financing 2,509,300 6,109,000 3,599,700 Total 2,884,300 6,484,000 3,599 700 As reflected above, the proposed funding sources included the "pay-as-you-go" and FEMA grant revenues that have already been appropriated for this project. Consistent with our current funding strategy (and in accordance with the City's debt financing policies), we recommend funding the remaining added balance ($3.6 million) with bond financing. There are two key benefits of using bond financing at this time: 1. Interest rates are at historically low rates. 2. We can spread the cost of these improvements over the life of this, better matching the cost of the project with its use. 3 ` U • O Public Safety Communications and Emergency Operations Center Improvements Page 9 Debt Service Costs. While public safety (police and fire) and other General Fund users account for most of the dispatch center's operations, our analysis in March 2005 allocated about 16% of the dispatch center benefit (and related costs) to employees in water, sewer and parking, who also depend on the dispatch center for emergency communications. Accordingly, the following ' shows debt service costs for the General, Water, Sewer and Parking Funds, assuming a thirty year term and annual interest at 5.5%: Annual Debt Service General Fund @ 84% 353,000 Water Fund @ 7% 29,000 Sewer Fund @ 8% 34,000 Parking Fund @ 1% 4,000 Total $420,000 The General Fund debt service costs shown above are consistent with the projections in the 2007-12 forecast presented to the Council in December 2006. Additionally, we will not incur debt service costs for this project until the second year of the 2007-09 Financial Plan (2008-09). Fire Storage Building Option As noted above, our site planning for dispatch center surfaced the need to address long-standing storage problems at Fire Station No. 1. The following outlines the existing storage situation at this site, and the proposed solution. Background. Fire Station No. 1 was designed in 1994, built in 1995 and occupied in 1996. Original concerns for department storage were addressed in the original design phase; however, due to funding constraints at the time, the needed storage space in the building was reduced. Upon completion in 1996, several sea-land containers were placed on the property to meet immediate storage needs. One file storage area on the original plans was converted into office space that now is used by two fire inspectors. Since 1996, the Fire Department has used one box trailer, two sea-land containers and three temporary storage sheds to assist with meeting the storage needs of the department. These storage options are full as are all the available storage closets and spaces inside the fire station. In 2004, the training storage room was converted into an office and the training props and training equipment were placed around the complex with no real home. More communications and information technology has been introduced into the station since it was built, taking up additional storage space. Existing Situation. The Fire Department has no space left at this station for additional storage: outside temporary storage solutions are full with no room for future additional storage. On the other hand, the Fire Department needs to eliminate the unsightly storage sheds and sea-land containers that hamper traffic circulation and have encroached into the training area of the station property. Public Safety Communications and Emergency Operations Center Improvements Page 10 Future Needs. With construction of the dispatch center, the Fire Department's useable space for parking, circulation and department storage will be significantly impacted before and after construction. Added Police staffing at the dispatch center will add more parking space requirements, further impacting the rear yard of the station property. Relocating and protecting the antique fire engines in the proposed storage building will free-up space in the existing engine room to house reserve apparatus. Proposed Solution. Site plans and schematic design for a 3,000 square foot storage facility at Fire Station No. 1 are provided in Attachment 3. Uses at the proposed centralized storage facility include: 1. Medical supplies and equipment. 2. Protective clothing for structural and wildland fires such as boots and helmets. 3. Public education supplies for both children and senior citizens including display boards, handouts, smoke detectors, batteries, fire prevention files and miscellaneous documents such as building plans. 4. Supplies and equipment for the "CERT" (Community Emergency Response Training) program such as gloves, masks, plastic helmets, make-up kits, large training props and student manuals. 5. Training props, supplies and educational displays including CPR mannequins and rescue dummy. 6. Hazardous materials response supplies, including bagged absorbent material, absorbent pads, and absorbent booms for creek spills. 7. Firefighting tools and equipment storage such as replacement tools, lights, fittings, out-of- county bags and hoses. 8. Two valuable restored fire engines (1926 Seagrave and 1941 Mack) as well as related Fire Department memorabilia. 9. Administrative financial and timecard files. Future Fire Museum and Public Education Center. The Fire Department's vision is to create a historical display for educating children and the public during tours. This center will consist of the two antique fire engines, antique fire alarm boxes, ladders, helmets, historical pictures and educational displays. These would be housed in the proposed storage facility. Project Costs. Unlike the dispatch center, this storage facility does not have to comply with the requirement for essential services buildings. As such, a more conventional pre-fabricated metal building will meet our needs at this site. This is projected to cost $450,000, summarized as follows: C o Public Safety Communications and Emergency Operations Center Improvements Page 11 Storage Building Cost-Estimate Site and soil preparation 77,000 Building and foundation 225,000 Electrical and mechanical systems 88,000 Design and inspection 24,000 Contingency at 10% of construction cost 36,000 Total 1 $450,000 These costs assume construction concurrently with the dispatch center. Building these two projects at the same time will result in significantly lower costs for the storage facility and less disruption to Fire Station No. l operations than if it was built at a later time as a separate project. Funding. If the Council approves going forward with this project, we recommend including it with the bond financing for the dispatch center. This will increase annual debt service costs by a modest $30,000. Summary. As noted above, we believe that this is our best opportunity to address Fire Department storage needs in the most efficient and cost effective manner. As such, while it will add costs to an already expensive project, we believe that this is the best course of action in meeting Fire Department needs on this site in both the short and long-term. Accordingly, we recommend including this storage facility in the bid package as an "additive alternative," which will allow us flexibility in separately evaluating the cost of this facility and awarding the construction contract. In short, we believe the benefits of building the storage building now in conjunction with the dispatch center outweigh the modest addition to debt service costs. Masonry Block Walls on Emily and South Street Option These improvements are a condition of development for the Maymont project, which is adjacent to the Fire Station No. 1 site. We could wait until that project goes forward to make these improvements. However, we do not control the timing of that project, and making these improvements as part of the dispatch center project will cause the least disruption to Fire Department and dispatch center operations, while providing needed site security. Since this is a condition of the Maymont development, we expect to be fully reimbursed for these costs if they are included in the scope of this project. Like the storage building, they will be separately iternized in the bid submittal and provided as an additive alternate in the bid package, which will allow us flexibility in separately evaluating the cost of these improvements and awarding the construction contract. In summary, there should be no net added costs if we include this with the workscope, but doing so will mitigate disruption to our operations. Project Schedule The following summarizes the key remaining steps for this project: 3- H C Public Safety Communications and Emergency Operations Center Improvements Page 12 Tasks bays_ Date 1. Council approves implementation actions 4/17/07 2. CAO approves specs and invitation for bids 60 7/1/07 3. Bids close 60 9/1/07 4. Evaluate bids; CAO awards contract 60 11/1/07 5. Contractor executes contract, mobilizes and begins work 30 12/1/07 6. Contractor completes construction 300 10/1/08 7. Install furnishings and technology equipment 60 12/1/08 8. Training, cutover and occupancy 90 3/1/09 As reflected, the new dispatch center should be fully operational by March 2009, which is almost two years from now. CAO Recommendations Summary Public Safety Emergency Communications Center 1. Approve site plan and design for the public safety emergency communications center located at Fire Station No. 1. 2. Approve a revised budget of $6,484,000 for this project, including design, construction, equipment and furnishings, and construction management. 3. Authorize the City Administrative Officer (CAO) to approve construction plans and specifications, invite bids and award the construction contract for this project if it is within the project construction cost estimate of$4,245,000. Additive Alternate: Fire Storage Facility 4. Approve as an additive alternate to the bid package a storage facility at Fire Station No. 1 and authorize the CAO to include this work in awarding the construction contract for public safety emergency communications center if it is within the project cost estimate of$390,000. 5. Approve a budget for the storage facility of $450,000, including design, site preparation; construction and construction management. Additive Alternate: Masonry Block Wall on Roundhouse and Emily Streets 6. Approve as an additive alternate to the bid package for concrete block walls on Roundhouse and Emily Streets and authorize the CAO to include this work in awarding the construction contract for public safety emergency communications center if it is within the project cost estimate of $275,000. This is a condition of development by the Maymont project, and if included in the bid award, would be subject to reimbursement from them. Design and Construction Management Services 7. Authorize the CAO to approve amended agreements with RRM Design Group and MarWal Construction to reflect the changed scope of services. Public Safety Communications and Emergency Operations Center Improvements Page 13 FISCAL IMPACT As noted above, the projected debt service costs for this project are consistent with the projections in the 2007-12 General Fund Fiscal Forecast ALTERNATIVES Dispatch Center 1. Do Nothing. Given the need to address to critical deficiencies in our emergency communications system, we do not recommend this option. 2. Implement Other Options. As discussed above, the Council comprehensively considered a full-range of options in March 2005. While this project is more expensive, none of the pros and cons of other options analyzed then — including relative costs — have changed. In short, we continue to believe that this is the right path to follow. 3. Defer the Project. Critical public safety communications will be at risk the longer we take to complete this project. Even with the proposed project, it will be almost two more years before the new dispatch center is operational. Additionally, deferring this project will only result in higher costs. Storage Facility 4. Do Not Include the Storage Facility as an Additive Alternate. We believe that for a modest added cost, this is the best opportunity to address long-standing storage needs at this site. Masonry Block Walls on Emily and South Streets 5. Do Not Include the Masonry Block Walls on Emily and South Streets as an Additive Alternate. Again, we believe that this is the best opportunity to complete this work with no net added costs to the City. CONCURRENCES Police and Fire Chiefs concur with the recommended actions. ATTACHMENTS 1. Dispatch Center Floor Plan 2. Dispatch Center Site Plan and Building Design 3. Fire Station Storage Facility Site Plan and Building Design G:Information Technology/IT Division/Dispatch Center Project/Council Agenda Reports/4-17-07 ,3 , 13 Public Safety Communication and EOC Improvements ATTACHMENT 1 Proposed Dispatch Center Floor Plan w..w, M C )� rC` 8 ..,0 O ti v ' 01 rM UM E; i33\ Mm u, m �O iii li ii nm i City of San Luis OBISpo 1 Public Safety CommunicatioCand EOC Improvements ATTACHMENT 2 Proposed Dispatch Center Site Plan - _ alr o9aq iry,.. I _� � I Perspective Rendering i n. I' ll fl city of �� san US oBispo 1 Public Safety Communications and EOC Improvements 0 ATTACHMENT 2 Propose Dispatch Center Elevations rMT q qq o 0 0 0 I I n i - 0 MRM vc_ City of _ is san Luis osispo 2 Public Safety Communicatiotr., and EOC Improvements ATTACHMENT 3 Site Plan with Proposed Storage Building I � it i II II ',�/ F. ♦ .irs tq IT KII mow' T G■� _ Y F Proposed Storage Building Floor Plan J WR P� SECT I r2 city of `� san Us owspo Public Safety Communicatior,� and EOC Improvements ATTACHMENT 3 Proposed Storage Building Exterior Elevations i 1'-1.III I I III !ILII:LII I I I III I II I—,11.11ii u!III III III II M47 roxrMnn��laM MS At" `� iy fjl It �l 'll I•t {li.11 II III II III III Ill-SII I; Ili I!I II .i�� 63 I wN.Rn.lgn uF�nEvm_+ city of - I� `j san Luis oBispo 3 2 O Page 1 of 1 Council, SloCity From: Terry Mohan [catsdad@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Sun 4/15/2007 4:35 PM To: Council, SloCity Cc: Subject: Time for a New Police Headquarters Attachments: With the cost of the proposed city communications center more than doubling,to $6.6 million, it is time to seriously consider the construction of a whole new police station.The current council agenda report states that one downside to the proposed communications facility's is it's location away from police headquarters,also it may be ten,to twenty years(and perhaps longer) before we would be able to build a new station if we spend money on this project. Now is the optimum time to go ahead with the construction of a new police headquarters.We have an ideal,city owned, location in the parking lot at the comer of Palm and Nipomo,and a new tax source to further supplement construction bond financing.A concerted effort by the council and city administration to expedite development plans fora new headquarters at this location could see it's approval and construction in little more than the time frame for the proposed communications center. To spend$6.6 million,or more,on a communications center alone knowing that a new police headquarters is the ultimate,and now attainable,goal, would be irresponsible. I would hope that with this new financial information the council will reconsider and opt to go ahead with a new police headquarters instead. Terry Mohan 2416 Santa Clara San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 RECEIVED (805) 547-9733 RED FILE - APR 16 2001 MEETING AGENDA SLO CITY CLERK DA y/7 a7ITEM #A( . 3 7E!RECn)lll COUNCIL 15 CAO� ACAO ATTORNEYCLERK/ORIG❑ DEPT HEADS UTIL DIR P40 01P J P QSuN u.0 https://mail.sloci ty.org/exchange/sl ocitycounci l/Inbox/Ti me%20for%20a%20New%2OPolice%2OHeadqu... 4/16/2007