03-22-12 MINUTES
POLICE BUILDING AD HOC COMMITTEE MEETING
March 22, 2012 — Week 5
COMMISSION CHAMBER, 800 SEMINOLE ROAD
IN ATTENDANCE:
Chairman Jack Varney
Mr. Arthur Corsano Mr. Mitchell Reeves
Mr. Stephen Kallao Mr. Chris Rule
Mr. Louis Keith Mr. Jim Smith
Ms. Darlene Kelley Mr. William Whittington
Facilitator Tiffany Busby
Chief of Police /Liaison Mike Classey
ABSENT: Mr. Don Ford, Ms. Juliette Hagist, Mr. Steve Lindorff
HANDOUTS (Week 5): Agenda, Minutes from 3/08/12 (Week 3), Minutes from 3/15/12 (Week 4),
Report dated 8/05/1986 from Jacksonville Engineering & Testing Co., Report of Geotechnical dated
7/01/2010 conducted by Ages of Jax, Inc., Police Building Comparisons compiled by ADG, Letter
dated 3/15/2012 Requesting to make a presentation for new Police Building facility on alternate site
[201 Mayport Road], and CCTV /Access Control Security Estimates.
WELCOME AND CALL TO ORDER (Jack Varney)
Attendance / introductions
Confirmed quorum
Chairman Jack Varney called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m. He confirmed there was a quorum.
He advised nine committee members are present.
Business Items (Tiffany Busby)
Review revised meeting minutes from March 8, 2012.
Action item: Approve meeting minutes from March 8th
Reeves made a motion to accept the minutes as written; Rule seconded. No discussion. All
members were in favor to accept the minutes, oppose — no nays. Chairman Varney advised the
minutes from March 8, 2012 are approved.
Action item: Approve meeting minutes from March 15
Chairman Varney noted the minutes from 3/15/2012 contained some spelling errors and some
points that needed clarification. Discussion ensued.
Rule made a motion to accept the minutes from 3/15/2012; seconded by Smith. No discussion. All
members were in favor to accept the minutes, oppose — no nays. Chairman Varney advised the
minutes from March 15, 2012 are approved.
Reeves asked the Chairman if he could make an opening statement and requested his statement
be recorded in the minutes. His statement is as follows: after he reread the mission of the
committee and the minutes, he is concerned with the direction of the committee. One member of
March 22, 2012 Police Building Ad Committee Meeting Page 2
Week 5
the committee came up with a great plan, a footprint, but it seems like the committee is designing a
building. Even though the committee is comprised of educated people, who have built buildings,
and some are still in the business, he is confused because he did not think the committee was set
up to build a building. He believes the purpose of the committee was to look at the existing building
recommendation that was offered. He stated he thought the committee was to study to see if the
Police Department really needed that much space or if the City really needed to invest in a two story
building at that location. He wanted to clarify the direction of the committee. He mentioned at the
committee's last meeting, there was some discussion of having a young man draw up plans for the
footprint submitted by a committee member. He questioned why the committee would go that far.
He thought the committee agreed on a footprint and he thought the following things would be done
as a committee for the City Commission: 1) footprint — select the best facility to allow the Police
Department to operate in and to grow in the future; 2) cost — the committee's recommendation for a
ceiling on the cost. He feels uncomfortable getting into the architect business; he mentioned
$400,000 has already been invested with an architect. He asked the committee if he is
misunderstanding the direction of the committee. Smith agreed with Mr. Reeves. Smith does not
think the committee should do the architect's job or second guess how well they did their job, but he
is of the opinion there are more potential options than just building the (ADG's proposed) building.
He advised there are probably four options that are known. Smith reiterated one of the things the
citizens spoke very loudly about was the possibility of expanding the existing building and his
thoughts are that it is the committee's job to explore that and decide if it can or cannot be done.
Reeves questioned if the committee wants to utilize Chief Classey's time with a volunteer detailing
the option. Another concern expressed by Reeves was that he feels an agreement needs to be
prepared between the City and the volunteer stating the volunteer is doing it on their own time and
will give their drawing to the City at no cost, and that there will be no fees if another architect goes
with that site that he /she may not request a fee for their work. His opinion is that the committee is
getting bogged down in some individual things. Smith stated that if the committee decides on the
option to condense the size of the proposed building and utilize 6,000 square feet of the existing
facility; then Chief Classey would ultimately decide how to separate the Police Department
operation and how to utilize the space. Reeves advised the more options on the table makes it hard
to achieve the committee's goal in nine weeks. Chairman Varney pointed out that the Commission
revised the charge at their last meeting and this was reported at the March 15 committee meeting.
The committee has the latitude to examine any options that the majority of the committee deems
viable. Reeves continued his thoughts stating, as committee members, they think they know the
number of rooms needed and can determine the size of the rooms. He recalled Mr. Corsano's
advice during his presentation, not to get lost in what is in the building, just look at the footprint. Mr.
Reeves advised he thought that was a good concept. Mr. Corsano interjected his reasoning of
utilizing the volunteer architect to draw up his footprint was to ensure it is a feasible option. He will
let the committee decide whether the volunteer should draw up the plans, but he would not want
the committee to vote on Option 1 (ADG's two story proposed building) or Option 2 (his proposed
one story and renovation of the existing building) and then have doubts whether Option 2 would
work. He would rather have the footprints drawn to scale to ensure it is plausible. Reeves
commented when he saw Mr. Corsano' footprint, being in the law enforcement field, not an
engineer, he saw errors, but he feels everything will fit in the proposed option. He asked how much
time the committee wants to spend on this. If the young man agreed to draw it, then fine. The
committee can vote later in the meeting. He reiterated again that there should be some type of
release from the committee since this is not a business but a City. He asked how deep the
committee should go?
March 22, 2012 Police Building Ad Committee Meeting Page 3
Week 5
Chairman Varney thanked Mr. Reeves and advised the committee members to express their
concerns and to keep the discussion as open and straightforward as possible.
Reminder of the Ground Rules
DISCUSSION OF OPTION TO BUILD ON EAST SIDE OF CANAL
Report from Stephen Kallao on his meeting with ADG Architects.
Discussion on pros and cons of building the building on the east side of the City property:
At the meeting on March 15 Mr. Kallao volunteered to research the feasibility of construction on
the east side of the creek. His research consisted of long discussions with each of the following
individuals, Ian Reeves (ADG), Janice and Bobby Fleet (Fleet and Associates) and Mike Griffin
(COAB Building Official) and going through files at the COAB Building Department. His search for
the "as built" plans of the police station was met without success. The individuals he spoke with
have a recollection that the foundation is an eight -inch slab with concrete support and number five
rebar. He concluded there is not enough information to support putting another floor (story?) on
that building.
The roof is a truss system. There are two ways to address that: tear the roof off or build over the
existing roof. (Build over involves placing steel girders over the building.) According to Mr. Griffin,
this would not put the roof line over the 35 -feet Building Code requirement for the City of Atlantic
Beach, and he felt confident the wind load code requirements could be met. Additional costs would
incur due to: the relocation of the Police Department for a significant amount of time and the
requirement of bringing the first story up to current Building Code requirements. The setback from
the property line is twenty feet. During their preliminary fact finding, ADG was instructed the trees in
front were not to be removed. (He is not sure if this is definite or not.) At the time, ADG was
concerned about Sherman Creek, so they sent a representative to discuss Sherman Creek with St.
Johns River Water Management. They were told that if that area became a retention area, permits
would have to be addressed.
The facilitator questioned if Mr. Kallao had an understanding of why building on top of the existing
facility would trigger having a retention area versus the west side of the creek. Mr. Kallao explained
the existing building is on a small site. The more pavement you lay down the more retention is
needed. Mr. Kallao discovered the site plan, not marked, included in the Week 2 handouts, was the
first ADG plan. This was confirmed with ADG; Fleet and Associates advised it was not their plan.
This plan included 18,000 square feet by building over the Police Department and included two 2-
story additions to the original building. The second story might have triggered something for
Sherman Creek, but he was not sure.
Ian Reeves (ADG) requested Mr. Kallao to advise the committee that ADG never made a formal
recommendation; he gave the Commissioners an option and the City Commissioners in 2010 voted
to move ahead with the two -story building on the west side of Sherman Creek.
Mr. Kallao spoke with Janice and Bobby Fleet (Fleet and Associates) about their plan that was
included in the Week 2 handouts. Basically, their plan included two single story additions to the
Police Station that both totaled approximately 3,985 square feet.
Discussion on cost estimates of the various options:
March 22, 2012 Police Building Ad Committee Meeting Page 4
Week 5
Questions and discussion
Action item: State committee results of the review of eastern site considerations.
Mr. Kallao reported that Janice and Bobby Fleet (Fleet and Associates), Mr. Griffin (COAB Building
Official) and Ian Reeves (ADG) agreed that either removing the roof from the existing building and
proceeding with a second story or a build over would cost approximately 5 million dollars.
Discussion ensued regarding costs of a new building on the west side of the creek. Ian Reeves
(ADG) remarked he estimated Mr. Corsano's footprint could be built for 3.2 to 3.6 million dollars.
Mr. Cosano's concept of a new one -story structure and renovating the existing facility calculated
favorably. Mr. Kallao advised he will contact Ian Reeves (ADG) regarding any clarifications needed
for the committee members.
Discussion followed. Some committee members considered eliminating the 2 -story proposed
building option by ADG, but after much discussion it was decided to table the option at this time. It
was noted that the feeling of the committee members is ADG's prices are high. A comment was
made that 10% is not a normal design fee and Ian Reeves (ADG) was asked last week how long it
would take to redesign the proposed one -story footprint and the response was eight months. The
committee members were reminded that ADG hired a construction consultant to put their pricing
together for the 2010 presentation.
Facilitator Busby asked the committee to summarize the remaining options the committee is
seriously considering. Smith responded the committee seems to be considering Art's plan and he
would like to see if it is truly viable. The discussion progressed to taking a closer look at Mr.
Corsano's plan.
Facilitator Busby commented to Chief Classey that the committee is flexible in offering a range of
9,000 to 10,000 square feet for new construction on the west side of the creek and 5,000 or under
renovated facility on the east side of the creek. There was discussion whether 9,000 or 10,000
square feet range would house all of the critical functions or key components of the Police
Department. Chief Classey's response was that initially when the Space Needs Analysis was
conducted by ADG, 14,000 square feet would be needed so he would be forced to place some
critical functions in the renovated facility. He commented he would need to list and rank the critical
functions. Facilitator Busby suggested it might be helpful if Chief Classey brought the list to the
next committee meeting or the results of the square footage after working with Mr. Corsano on the
drawing. The following topics were discussed regarding the construction of a new facility: the Sally
Port, the location of the Communications Center and Records, the size of the briefing room,
Accreditation standards and the American Disabilities Act. Chief Classey noted that in developing a
floor plan layout a lot of things have to be considered; ADG pointed out a lot of those things to him.
If some of the police functions are placed in the renovated existing facility, then the renovation may
need to be brought up to the higher level of requirements for Building Code requirements. Chief
Classey will invite Mr. Mike Griffin (COAB Building Official) to make a short presentation regarding
Building Code requirements that apply to police functions and to answer questions.
Chairman Varney was asked if it would be appropriate for the committee members to speak with the
volunteer architect who was sitting in the audience. The volunteer was asked and agreed that he is
willing to sit with the Chief to draw up a floor plan for the committee to critique, his name is Lance
March 22, 2012 Police Building Ad Committee Meeting Page 5
Week 5
Wolfson, he would not have a problem signing a release and he is currently not working for an
architect firm.
Facilitator Busby commented that by pursuing this course of putting Mr. Corsano's plan to scale
with some sort of space analysis will assist the committee when reporting to the Commission to
ensure that their recommendation is a feasible option.
Action item: Give guidance to Arthur Corsano and volunteer architect on whether to pursue
drawing his one -story building plan.
Smith made a motion to permit Art Corsano and Chief Classey to sit down with pro bono architect
Lance Wolfson to come up with a plan and maybe bring something back to the committee by the
next meeting or the following meeting for all of the committee to look at. Corsano amended the
motion to say by the next meeting; Rule seconded. Facilitator asked the parties involved if they
were in agreement. Discussion- the parties agreed. Chairman Varney asked if all were in favor and
it was agreed.
At the March 15 meeting, Smith requested an estimate for the security CCTV system. [handout]
After analyzing the list, Mr. Smith advised it was way more than what is needed.
The committee members expressed in various discussions that they would like to strongly
recommend that the City Manager look at the design -build aspect.
Facilitator Busby asked Chief Classey to explain the elevation issues that need to be factored in
and addressed with the one -story concept. Chief Classey explained the proposed two story
building included plans to designate some space on the second floor to two areas: 1) IT Server
Room —to centrally locate all of the City servers, so that in the event of an incident they would be
protected in a more secure environment and able to operate and 2) Incident Command, i.e. a
secondary relocation area for communications utilizing a multi -use room, in the event, the first floor
flooded. A space of 700 square feet would be needed. A mezzanine level would fulfill this need.
Discussion ensued regarding the City's disaster preparedness plans and the Mobile Command
Post. The Mobile Command Post consists of a box truck. Once the Red Cross designates Kernan
Elementary as a Red Cross Shelter, all COAB staff will report to and staff that shelter.
Chief Classey advised he would like to invite Keith Randich, IT Director, to respond to the
technology concerns of the committee.
INVITATION TO CONSIDER ANOTHER BUILDING SITE
Facilitator Busby advised Mayport Road LLC sent in a request to make a presentation for a new
police building at an alternative site. [handout] She asked if the committee would like to invite
Mayport LLC to hear their presentation. Discussion followed on whether to invite Mayport Road
LLC to make a presentation to the committee.
Action item: Determine whether to invite a presentation on locating the police building at a
specific site on Mayport Road.
Rule made a Motion not to invite Mayport Road LLC to make a presentation to this committee;
Keith seconded the motion. All committee members were in agreement not to extend an invitation
to Mayport Road LLC to a committee meeting.
March 22, 2012 Police Building Ad Committee Meeting Page 6
Week 5
Chairman Varney pointed out to the committee members that at the end of this procedure, the
committee is going to have to write a report and submit the report to the City Commission. He
advised the members that he has a prior commitment April 16 — May 4. If the report is not
completed by April 16 he will work on it after May 4 He would like to divide the report into
meaningful segments. Facilitator Busby asked if he was soliciting volunteers to assist in writing the
final report. His response was he will wait until the next meeting to give the members time to think
about it. A member asked if the committee would have access to clerical assistance from the City.
Chief Classey advised he will work with the committee. Chairman Varney stated he believes the
report will contain approximately 5 - 7 pages, reviewing what the committee considered, and what
the committee members were thinking and why.
Wrap up (Tiffany Busby)
Next meeting: Thursday, March 29th (Week 6) at 6:00 p.m.
Review of action items.
ADJOURN (Jack Varney)
There being no further discussion, Chairman Varney declared the meeting adjourned at 8:11 p.m.
())13‘71
) 7.
ck Varney, Chairma
Minutes prepared by: Diane Graves