Loading...
04-05-12MINUTES POLICE BUILDING AD HOC COMMITTEE MEETING April 5, 2012 — Week 7 COMMISSION CHAMBER, 800 SEMINOLE ROAD IN ATTENDANCE: Chairman Jack Varney Mr. Arthur Corsano Mr. Don Ford Ms. Juliette Hagist Mr. Stephen Kallao Mr. Louis Keith Mr. Steve Lindorff ABSENT: Ms. Darlene Kelley Mr. Mitchell Reeves Mr. Chris Rule Mr. Jim Smith Mr. William Whittington Facilitator Tiffany Busby Chief of Police/Liaison Mike Classey HANDOUTS (Week 7): Agenda, Minutes from 3/29/12 (Week 6), Florida Building Codes PowerPoint, Holding Cells and Sally Port PowerPoint, Police Department Forensic Lab PowerPoint, Mr. Lindorff s Facility Space spreadsheet and Mr. Keith's letter with two attachments "2011 ABPD Holding Cells Log Analysis" and "2011 ABPD Arrests -Notices to Appear -Holding Cells -Sally Port Data Summary" WELCOME AND CALL TO ORDER (Jack Varney) Chairman Jack Varney called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. He confirmed there was a quorum. Chairman Varney advised an invited guest, Mr. Mike Griffin, COAB Building Official, would address the Building Code Requirements and the new State of Florida Building Code Requirements. BUSINESS ITEMS (Tiffany Busby) Reminder of the ground rules. Facilitator Busby read the ground rules to the committee members. She mentioned Mr. Corsano needed to leave the meeting prior to adjournment. Review the meeting minutes from March 29, 2012. Facilitator Busby asked if there were any corrections or editing that needed to be made to the March 29, 2012 minutes. Mr. Steve Lindorff advised his first name was incorrect on the attendance list. Mr. Varney thought the number 8,872.5 total square footage for Mr. Corsano's footprint was incorrect in the minutes, but Mr. Corsano advised the number is probably correct. Mr. Ford requested the minutes reflecting the comments should list the member's name rather than be identified as "a committee member". Action item: Approve the meeting minutes from March 29, 2012. Rule made a motion to accept the minutes from March 29, 2012; seconded by Smith. All members voted to accept the minutes. Chairman Varney advised the minutes from March 29, 2012 are approved as presented. April 5, 2012 Police Building Ad Committee Meeting Page 2 Week 7 Mr. Smith brought to the Chairman's attention an issue, never discussed in any of their committee meetings, regarding how many meetings a member can miss to be considered a voting member. Discussion ensued regarding the importance of attendance of committee members at the committee meetings. Mr. Ford advised that Mr. Reeves had missed a meeting. Mr. Reeves took offense to Mr. Ford's statement and clarified he had not missed any meetings. Mr. Reeves suggested a committee member could only miss four meetings and he added that he had driven straight from New Orleans in order to attend the meeting tonight. Facilitator Busby directed her remarks to Chairman Varney. Since the committee members were appointed by the Commission, she was not certain if it is for the committee to decide what the rules are regarding attendance or if a Commissioner would want to reappoint someone else because their representative is not attending the committee meetings. Chairman Varney responded that he could not answer the question with any certainty. He stated that since the Commission appointed the members of the Committee by a vote; then, maybe, the Commission should resolve the issue regarding the attendance of the members rather than the committee. Discussion ensued. In regards to member's attendance, Mr. Keith advised the committee did not make a rule and things cannot be changed in midstream. Mr. Keith commented that now Mr. Ford will be set to a standard not set at the beginning when the committee started. Mr. Keith advised the committee is trying to change the rules midstream and that is not right. Mr. Keith commented the committee did not set the rules at the beginning, shame on us. Mr. Smith conveyed he thought the subject he brought up regarding committee members attendance was a reasonable subject for discussion. Mr. Smith said it was mentioned a Commissioner could reappoint someone to replace a member, but he did not think that it made sense to bring someone in at the last one or two meetings the committee is scheduled to meet. Mr. Smith commented that would be a lot of information for a new member to catch up with the other members on the committee. In order to clarify the discussion of questioning member's attendance at the meetings, Mr. Reeves made a request to have the Chairman have the secretary read each name of each committee member and say how many meetings each have missed. Reeves made a motion, so we will have clarification about this committee regarding who has missed and how many meetings, as a roll call, seconded by Smith. Discussion ensued regarding the attendance at the meetings.. Mr. Ford spoke up in his defense that he had incidents that were unavoidable the past two Thursday nights and advised the members that setting the rules after the committee starts is beyond him. Mr. Reeves made a motion to call the question. All members voted in favor of calling the question. Chairman Varney advised the debate is closed. The motion made by Reeves failed by a majority of the vote of the members. Chairman Varney encouraged the committee members to do some work tonight. He conveyed his editorial comments that everyone has worked, been in attendance when they could, and now it is time for the committee to continue with what they have been doing the past few weeks, which is striving to get the job done. He feels certain this group can accomplish the task. He extended his appreciation for their effort. He understands Mr. Smith's concern regarding attendance of the members. The police building is a complex issue. It is important that all committee members keep up to date with the information provided. FEEDBACK ON BUILDING CODE APPLICATIONS TO POLICE FUNCTIONS (Mike Griffin) Facilitator Busby stated the committee was advised in a prior meeting that new State of Florida Building Code Requirements effective March 15, 2012 could affect the options under consideration by the committee. Also, new floodplain maps were revised will be effective in the summer of 2012. April 5, 2012 Police Building Ad Committee Meeting Page 3 Week 7 FLORIDA BUILDING CODES (Mike Griffin) A PowerPoint presentation entitled "Florida Building Codes" was presented by Mr. Mike Griffin, Building Official with COAB [handout]. Mr. Griffin's presentation covered the Floodplain Management's (FEMA) Building Code Requirements that would pertain to renovating the existing building. Mr. Griffin explained the Atlantic Beach Police Building is regulated as a critical facility related to wind design and floodplain management. The occupancy is classified as business. The current wind design requirement is 130 mph. The Floodplain Management revised the floodplain maps effective summer, 2012. According to the new FEMA map, the building is located in flood zone AE 7, with a requirement of a finished floor at an elevation of 9.5 feet above sea level. This requirement applies to new construction or when renovating a substantial improvement, as explained in the following paragraph. The following State of Florida Building Code Requirements should be considered when renovating: -Floodplain Management requires the finished floor to be elevated above the base flood line if the cost of the renovation is a substantial improvement. Substantial improvement, as defined, the amount exceeds fifty percent of the value of the existing structure. The current market value of the Police/Fire Department building, appraised by the Duval County Property Appraiser, is $475,654. The appraised value of $475,654 divided by two equals $237,827. -If the renovation to the existing police building is greater than $237,827, then the existing floor at 8.31 feet above sea level would need to be elevated to 9.5 feet above sea level in order to comply with the current flood zone. -Accessibility compliance requires twenty percent of disproportionate cost of construction starting with an accessible entrance, an accessible route throughout the building and restroom facilities. Questions regarding additions and not renovating the existing facility. Mr. Corsano questioned to clarify if a new facility is constructed at the proposed site, west of the creek, and the existing building is renovated, less than half the appraised value, and connected with a walkway, would the elevation of the existing building need to be changed to meet the flood line code. Mr. Griffin advised not as long as you do not change the existing door openings. There was discussion regarding the City of Jacksonville's property appraisal of the Police/Fire Department building. Members considered the appraisal to be too low. Mr. Griffin explained the City could hire a certified appraiser to obtain another appraisal. If the Police/Fire Building was reappraised, the appraisal paperwork would need to be located in the COAB Building Department files for documentation. Mr. Griffin advised that if the City does not enforce the flood plan management regulations (FEMA) could place the City on probation for not being in compliance. It was asked by Mr. Reeves if it could be brought before the City Commissioners to request a variance, but Mr. Griffin advised that FEMA frowns on variances. Mr. Griffin asked what would you base the variance on — a hardship? Mr. Griffin advised money cannot be a hardship. From his experience, Mr. Ford advised you can get a hardship variance and the hardship variances vary depending on the committee at FEMA that you sit in front of; it is very subjective, and it is not always well defined before you go to the meeting. Mr. Ford advised it cannot be based on something that you have built into the property which is problematic with this building because it was built at that elevation, however, that elevation was set after the building was built. Mr. Ford noted a variance may be obtained based on the grandfathering clause and based on it being an older building, he advised that is not an unreasonable thing to do. April 5, 2012 Police Building Ad Committee Meeting Page 4 Week 7 The committee members felt confident that if an appraiser was hired their appraisal would be much higher than the City of Jacksonville's property appraisal. Mr. Griffin explained the methods of compliance - prescriptive, work area and performance. He briefly covered the processes for the three methods. Since the work area compliance is generally used, he pointed out the three work area level alterations. • Level 1 alteration includes the removal and replacement or the covering of existing materials, elements, equipment, or fixtures that serve the same purpose. • Level 2 alterations include the reconfiguration of space, the addition or elimination of any door or window, the reconfiguration or extension of any system or the installation of any additional equipment. • Level 3 alterations apply where the work area exceeds 50% of the aggregate area of the building and were made within any 12 -month period. (Exception: not including where work is only electrical, plumbing and mechanical). Mr. Ford stated a Level 3 alteration is absolutely what this (police) building would fall under based on Fleet and Associates original three different plans. Mr. Ford questioned the 50% number and noted it has been pushed about quite a bit. Mr. Ford advised that is not a huge problem with this building. Mr. Ford advised everything in this building was built in 1984, so it is a modem building. Mr. Ford remarked it is not like we are going into a 1920 or 1930 building. Mr. Ford explained most of the systems in the building still meet the Code. Mr. Ford stated from his knowledge of the building, the structural part of that building is beyond what the Code requires. Mr. Ford continued with his observance stating to go in and gut the building would definitely make it a level 3 (alteration). Mr. Ford remarked based on his experience, it is not going to cause problems with FEMA's regulations: for example, the windows are fine and would meet today's Code. They are not impact resistant glass, but they would meet the code as required for a standard building. The plumbing would probably need to be redone, simply because you are going to reconfigure the floor plan. Renovating the existing police building would provide an opportunity to repair the air conditioning system; there has always been a problem with the air conditioning system. Mr. Ford remarked, to throw that fifty percent number out there, and say we have to tear the building down, is not accurate. Mr. Ford advised Mr. Kallao has been researching the foundation plans and he actually located the original plans were unavailable. Mr. Ford stated he considers the existing police building a super structure. Mr. Kallao advised he brought the plans of the foundation for viewing. Mr. Griffin continued with his presentation stating Level 2 alteration considerations cannot reduce the capacity. He explained Level 2 alteration considerations are as follows: • exit capacity and travel distances, • fire resistance, • structural alterations cannot reduce the existing capacity, • new loads must comply with current building code, • dead end corridors, • emergency lighting, and • fire sprinkler systems. He explained the Level 3 alteration considerations are: April 5, 2012 Police Building Ad Committee Meeting Page 5 Week 7 • Where not more than 30% of the total floor and roof areas of the building are involved in a "structural" alteration within a 12 -month period, an evaluation and analysis must demonstrate that the altered building or structure complies with the loads applicable at the time the building was constructed. Mr. Ford commented that line underlined in the presentation is important and he was glad Mr. Griffin underlined it in his presentation, referring to loads applicable at the time the building was constructed. Mr. Ford advised in his business he does it all the time. He has to find out what Code that building was built under and compare those structural requirements to see if that building still complies with that code that it was built under. Mr. Griffin continued with the Level 3 alteration. Mr. Kallao mentioned he was in touch with Fleet and Associates, who proposed not adding a second floor to the existing building, but proposed an addition in the front and the rear, not to affect the structure or load. Mr. Kallao questioned if additions in the front and the rear you would be considered making structural alterations? Mr. Griffin said additions would be considered substantial improvement, by adding value to the building. Mr. Griffin advised if you put an addition on the building, it still would be calculated as a substantial improvement. If the addition is less than the amount considered substantial improvement, then the addition would not be required to meet the new FEMA regulation; however, if the amount of the addition to the existing building is substantial improvement; then the addition would need to meet the FEMA requirement and if there is any renovation in the existing building, then the existing building would need to meet the FEMA requirements. Discussion ensued. Mr. Griffin advised a new structure constructed at the location under consideration would have to be elevated 9.5 feet per the new (effective summer, 2012) FEMA Flood Plan Management map. Mr. Corsano asked about the door openings and Mr. Griffin advised as long as the renovation to the existing building does not increase the number of door openings to the structure. Facilitator Busby confirmed her notes from Mr. Griffin's presentation as follows: • New buildings must meet the elevation requirement which is 9.5 feet above sea level • On an addition, if it is less than the substantial improvement measure, the new elevation is not required if the existing structure is not improved. • If the existing structure is renovated, if it is less than the substantial improvement standard, the new elevation would not be required. • Openings cannot be modified. Mr. Ford pointed out the State of Florida Building Codes released new codes and cannot be oversimplified. Mr. Ford added there are some exceptions that need to be studied. Mr. Griffin confirmed the doors on the existing building meet the accessibility requirement. Mr. Ford clarified handicap access clearance is twenty-nine inches. Lindorff made a motion to ask the City to order an MAI (Professional Association of Commercial Appraisers) appraiser to appraise the Police/Fire Department structure; seconded by Reeves. Discussion ensued. The motion carried. SALLY PORT AND HOLDING CELL STATISTICSIRATIONALE FOR INVESTMENT IN THESE FACILITIES (Commander Tiffany Layson) April 5, 2012 Police Building Ad Committee Meeting Page 6 Week 7 A PowerPoint presentation entitled "Holding Cells & Sally Port" was presented by Commander Layson [handout]. Commander Layson's presentation began with responses to questions submitted by committee member Mr. Whittington. The first question asked how many of the approximately 1,000 arrests made by Atlantic Beach Police Department required an officer to transport the arrestee to the JSO Detention Facility (Duval County PreTrial Detention Facility). Commander Layson stated approximately ten percent of the violators are issued a Notice To Appear (NTA), and the violator is not transported to the PreTrial Detention Facility. She provided a table for the years 2007 until 2011 depicting a breakdown of the number of arrests, number placed in the holding cells, number of males and the number of females. She stressed no juveniles were held in the holding cells. She advised the arresting officer made a notation that on a holding cell log sheet a juvenile was listed as an N/A ...subject (juvenile) sat in the cell area in a chair next to the officer during an Armed Robbery investigation. Mr. Whittington asked if there had been any incidents where a citizen interfered with or attempted to interfere with a police officer transferring an arrestee from a police vehicle from entering or departing from the police station during the years 2007 — 2011. Commander Layson advised there are not any documented instances during that timeframe. The next question asked about escapes or attempted escapes during the transfer process of arrestees upon arrival or departure from the police station for the years 2007 — 2011. She stated, not in the requested timeframe. In response to two of Mr. Whittington's questions, Commander Gualillo gave a discussion of circumstances/situations that have occurred justifying the need for a Sally Port. Mr. Keith asked how many were arrested for interfering with a law enforcement officer? Commander Gualillo responded by saying probably very few. Once the officer gets the interfering party's cooperation to leave, there is no point in making another arrest. The officer wants the interfering party to leave so they can finish their docket and transport the arrestee. Mr. Kallao remarked if the officer transported the subject straight to jail then that would not be a problem. Commander Gualillo responded by saying not always. Commander Gualillo mentioned an incident that occurred the previous night where a family was interfering with the officer administering a FSE (Field Sobriety Exercise) and the officer had to bring the subject to a more secure location to administer the FSE. Commander Layson's presentation continued with facts regarding the holding cells in the existing facility, ADG price estimate for cells & Sally Port and the holding cell spatial needs. Under the spatial needs, she conveyed that although a specified square footage requirement is not listed in the Florida State Statute, there are certain functions mandated by law and accreditation standards that were included in her presentation. She reminded the members that police operations are high liability, by their very nature - driving, arrests, use of force, and handcuffing. Discussion ensued. Facilitator Busby encouraged the members to think about what, as a committee, they would like to include in their report regarding holding cells and Sally Port. Ms. Busby reminded the committee the Charge asks the committee to identify and prioritize key components either in an expansion or a new building, i.e. dispatch center, records, specialized storage, jail cells, et cetera. She advised the charge does ask for input back to the Commissioners on some of the components of the building, not just the size of the building. Chief Classey stated that a Sally Port and holding cells are a critical component to the police function, and he wants April 5, 2012 Police Building Ad Committee Meeting Page 7 Week 7 these components in a new facility. He explained why the current Sally Port and holding cells are considered inadequate and deficient. Mr. Keith and Chief Classey discussed the condition, repair costs and the use of the holding cells and Sally Port. Ms. Hagist made a motion the committee no longer continue discussing the holding cells and Sally Port and to leave it up to the Chief of Police to decide what he needs; second by Lindorff. Discussion ensued. Chairman Varney requested clarification of the motion. Ms. Hagist's clarified her motion, the committee will no longer discuss the holding cells or the Sally Port and provide in a new building three holding cells and a Sally Port with two bays; seconded by Lindorff. Discussion ensued. Mr. Lindorff asked for clarification as to the amount of time a suspect could be detained. He noted that Jacksonville Beach Police Department advised they can detain a suspect for only two hours, and the Atlantic Beach Police Department conveys in the information provided that they can detain a suspect for up to six hours. {Commander Gualillo provided copies the Florida State Statute that states suspects can be detained up to six hours.} Mr. Lindorff stated, he believes the committee should provide to the City Commission the square footage needed, in the right configuration (all in one building or a new building with a remodeled building, or just remodel the existing building) and put a number on the decision and let the Chief of Police and staff make the changes to the configurations as needed as long as the changes are within the square footage and the budget for the police department to provide the best service to the community. In response to a question regarding space for a holding cell, Chief Classey advised, in most modern police facilities, the holding cells are constructed basically with a half block and half glass (for visibility) wall with a drain. Mr. Ford requested amending the motion to say the Sally Port, Sally Port singular, and if we are going to have holding cells, they have to meet Florida State Statutes requirements. He advised the committee has been shown part of one of those statutes. Facilitator Busby repeated his requested amendment and asked Ms. Hagist if she wanted to amend her motion. Ms. Hagist stated she stands firm on three holding cells and two Sally Ports (in the discussion, she meant to say, one Sally Port with two bays), whatever specifications that they are suppose to have. Discussion ensued regarding the State Statute that pertains to holding cells. Chief Classey stated the Florida State Statute does not cover some areas regarding holding cells such as, the size; however, accreditation and State rules cover lighting, ventilation and drinking water. Mr. Ford commented the police department needs a maintenance schedule, the rooms are not being used for their designed purpose and pointed out storage seems to be a problem. Discussion ensued and comments were made that an architect would design a holding cell according to the Florida State Statutes. Mr. Keith emphatically stated he wants a holding cell to be used as a holding cell and for the police department not to make it a break area. If the Chief wants three holding cells, he agreed to allow for three holding cells. He advised he just had a discussion with Chief Classey regarding cleaning out the Sally Port area in order for the street officers to use as needed. Mr. Smith requested the Chairman require the committee members to limit their discussion to what the Charge is and the members should not try to run the police department. He advised there has been too much discussion about how the police department should be run and what the police are doing. Mr. Smith advised this discussion reoccurs each week during their meetings. Chairman Varney said as Mr. Reeves has said the committee members are not the police commission and that is true. Chairman Varney stated Mr. Keith had some legitimate questions brought up for discussion. Mr. Lindorff conveyed he wanted the discussion directed towards the topic of configuring a floor plan, to work on the square footage of a new building, and discussion to configure the functions that will not fit in the new facility in the renovated existing building. Mr. Lindorff expressed that he did April 5, 2012 Police Building Ad Committee Meeting Page 8 Week 7 not think anybody turned the (existing) building into the storage shed that it is on purpose. He believes it has to do with the expansion of the police function in this world we live in. Discussion ensued with comments that the police department does not fit in the existing building. Mr. Lindorff made a motion to call the question. Facilitator Busby advised the motion made was to provide three holding cells and a two bay Sally Port in a new building. Chairman Varney called for a vote to end the debate regarding the holding cells and Sally Port. The members in favor of ending the debate were Hagist, Lindorlf, Reeves, Rule, Smith and Varney and the members who opposed were Ford, Kallao, Keith, and Whittington. Chairman Varney asked who was in favor of the motion to provide three holding cells and one Sally Port with two bays in a new building and the following members were in favor, Hagist, Lindorff, Reeves, Rule, Smith, and Varney; the following members were opposed to the motion, Ford, Kalllao, Keith, and Whittington. The motion carried. Mr. Whittington remarked a thorough analysis with an independent evaluation of the police department should have been completed prior to the appointment of a committee. He stated If the evaluation was conducted, the committee has not seen it. Chairman Varney advised it could be part of the committee's recommendation to the Commission. Mr. Whittington advised an evaluation of the police department would have been beneficial to the committee members in providing a valid argument in comparing the present police facility to the police department's needs. Laboratory Needs Commander Maddox was invited to provide additional information in regards to the functions of a lab. A lab was included in ADG's and Mr. Corsano's footprint. A PowerPoint presentation entitled "Police Department Forensic Lab — a brief overview of the modern police department's needs" was presented by Commander Pat Maddox [handout]. Commander Maddox defined a forensic lab as: secure, pass -key guarded work area where forensic processing of evidence occurs. The proposed police facility allots an area of 10 feet by 16 feet. The technical aspects of the lab were covered. He concluded his presentation with the justifications for the lab. The forensic lab will provide: • a secure pass -key guarded, environmentally controlled work area to process evidence — chain of custody preservation, wind/humidity control, • permanent, multi-chamber ducted fume hood with reverse ventilation to remove caustic gasses that result from chemical processing — ability to use more than one chemical agent without complete breakdown/cleaning of fume chamber, • large evidence processing capability, and • reduce / eliminate CSI effect to ensure citizens that they are receiving top notch police services from a modern police department. Discussion ensued. Chief Classey explained the Atlantic Beach Police Department handles all cases except for homicides cases. Homicide cases are handled by the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office through a mutual agreement. Question was raised in the discussion regarding how the operating costs of a lab would affect the budget. Chief Classey advised there would be a one-time capital expenditure for a fuming chamber, priced several months ago in the $5,000 — $7,000 range; the operating costs on an annual basis are not going to be that significant. Kallao made a motion if the Chief thinks the police department needs this lab, a lab should be included in a new facility. Chairman Varney asked if Mr. Kallao wanted to specify the size the lab should entail. Mr. Kallao advised no. The motion was seconded by Rule. Per Chairman Varney, April 5, 2012 Police Building Ad Committee Meeting Page 9 Week 7 the floor was opened up for discussion. Discussion ensued. Mr. Keith advised he did not have enough information to vote. Mr. Smith called the question. All were in favor of calling the question. Chairman Varney asked for a vote on the motion. Nine were in favor of the motion and one nay, Keith. Facilitator Busby stated the time was 8:45 p.m. and asked the committee members if they wanted to continue with the last item on the agenda — Discussion of Building Options with three bullets — considerations for future expansion, feedback from ADG on the inclusiveness of the rough cost estimate of $3.2 - $3.6 Million for the "Art Option" and discussion on whether police building(s) could all be located on East side of Sherman Creek (Fleet and Associates plan, two single -story additions). Keith made a motion to table the discussion of the building options until the next meeting (April 12, 2012); seconded by Ford. All members were in favor of tabling the discussion of the building options until April 12, 2012. Chairman Varney advised the motion carried. Discussion ensued regarding writing the report to the Commission. Members disagreed regarding the number of alternatives the committee should provide in their report to the Commission. Mr. Smith reminded the members of the committee's Charge which lists seven questions the committee's report is expected to specifically answer. Chairman Varney stated the committee members should review their Charge carefully and be prepared to do the best they can at the next meeting. Wrap up (Tiffany Busby) Next meeting: Thursday, April 12, 2012 at 6:00 p.m. Schedule agenda items: Discussion of Building Options ADJOURN (Jack Varney) There being no further discussion, Chairman Varney declared the meeting adjourned at 8:49 p.m. _: a r , N 10,41 Minutes prepared by: Diane Graves