05-09-12IN ATTENDANCE:
Chairman Jack Varney
Mr. Arthur Corsano
Mr. Don Ford
Ms. Juliette Hagist
Mr. Stephen Kallao
Mr. Louis Keith
Ms. Darlene Kelley
MINUTES
POLICE BUILDING AD HOC COMMITTEE MEETING
May 9, 2012 — Week 9
COMMISSION CHAMBER, 800 SEMINOLE ROAD
Mr. Steve Lindorff
Mr. Mitch Reeves
Mr. Chris Rule
Mr. Jim Smith
Mr. William Whittington
Facilitator Tiffany Busby
Chief of Police/Liaison Mike Classey
HANDOUTS (Week 9): Agenda, Revised Minutes from April 5, 2012, Minutes from April 12, 2012,
Attachment A to the minutes (Mr. Jensen's email RE: the Sunshine Law), Mr. Lindorff's email and
Wolfson Rendition of New Single Story Building and Email to Steve Kallao (includes ADG Estimate
of Probable Cost — includes 50% threshold cost)
Mr. Ford distributed handout "Building Valuation Data" — February 2012
Mr. Corsano distributed a handout "Recommendations for the Commission"
WELCOME AND CALL TO ORDER (Jack Varney)
Chairman Varney called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and confirmed there was a quorum.
BUSINESS ITEMS (Tiffany Busby)
Reminder of Ground Rules
Facilitator Busby read the Ground Rules to the members.
Review revised meeting minutes from April 5, 2012.
Review meeting minutes from April 12, 2012.
Action item: Approve the meeting minutes from April 5 and April 12, 2012.
Lindorff made a motion to accept the revised minutes from April 5, 2012; seconded by Reeves.
All members voted to accept the minutes. Chairman Varney advised the revised minutes from April
5, 2012 are approved.
Reeves made a motion to accept the minutes from April 12, 2012; seconded by Lindorff.
All members voted to accept the minutes. Chairman Varney advised the minutes from April 12,
2012 are approved.
DISCUSSION OF BUILDING OPTIONS
Follow up items from last time:
• Comments on the Corsano/Wolfson proposed building option (Art Corsano)
Mr. Corsano distributed a handout "Recommendations for the Commission". He explained the
handout was a summary of a building option that had been discussed in the committee's meetings.
May 9, 2012 Police Building Ad Committee Meeting Page 2
Week 9
Mr. Kallao suggested the committee members concentrate first on the square footage for a
proposed new building, determine the square footage and then proceed with determining the price
for a proposed new building.
Mr. Ford advised his handout "Building Valuation Data" is a quarterly resource distributed
nationwide, contains a factor for every jurisdiction in this country and provides building officials with
a current, actual square foot cost.
The members discussed the various building option sizes that have been discussed in previous
meetings for a new proposed building and the square footage of space to renovate in the existing
building.
Mr. Smith made a motion to come up with the size that is adequate to meet the needs of the police
department and then give those recommendations to the Commission. Let them (the City) put it out
to bid and the price is going to be whatever it is going to be based on square footage that we (the
committee) recommended; seconded by Rule for discussion.
The motion was discussed. Mr. Ford commented that the committee can determine the
approximate price for a proposed new building. Mr. Reeves mentioned that the committee has
discussed a cost between $250 a square foot to $326 a square foot for a new 9,000 square foot
building. Mr. Smith concluded from the discussion that the members agreed that the committee
should determine a price range cost rather than one specific cost and provide documentation for
their recommendation to the Commission. Mr. Smith withdrew his motion. Discussion ensued
regarding the motion. Mr. Lindorff understood Mr. Smith's motion meant for the committee to focus
and concentrate on the square feet for a proposed building. Mr. Rule withdrew his second.
The discussion continued with the various sizes and cost figures for a recommendation to the
Commission. Chairman Varney suggested the committee look at the information presented tonight
and focus on the details.
• Comments on the Corsano/Wolfson proposed building option (Art Corsano)
Mr. Corsano read his handout "Recommendation to the Commission".
1. Build a new single -story building, approximately 9000 square feet located west of the existing
police station. This shall be located as far south adjacent to existing construction as codes allow,
and as far east as possible, cantilevered over the ditch. The new building shall resemble the
attached foot print with the functions as agreed to by the Police Chief. The building should also look
like the attached rendering.
2. Remodel a portion of the existing police building not to exceed 4999 square foot. Any footage
beyond this number kicks in new requirements.
Comments — Mr. Corsano advised the committee has discussed many times not to exceed 4,999
square feet which would incur additional building code requirements.
3. The existing building must be newly appraised, as requested in a prior meeting. This is to avoid
new requirements by FEMA, since the remodeling costs must fall below 50% of the appraised
May 9, 2012 Police Building Ad Committee Meeting Page 3
Week 9
value. The remodeling shall include space for: locker rooms, the armory, the detective branch, the
servers, break rooms, animal control, storage, and exterior storage fenced in behind the fire
department.
Comments - The committee has requested that the City get an appraisal. He does not know the
status of the request.
4. Construct a simple covered walkway between the new building and the existing remodeled
police station.
Comments — Mr. Corsano advised he is trying to simplify a proposed walkway, with two driven piles
on each side of the ditch and and the walkway with little portals for light.
5. The police chief will work with the designers to ensure final floor plans provide an adequate
solution to all existing issues.
Comments - We are not locked into what was drawn, the final floor plans can flow differently.
6. In order to save time and design costs, it is further recommended that this work be done under
the "design build" concept with work starting on the new building , immediately after its design (or
fast tracked as it's designed, if desired).
Comments - Mr. Corsano commented the members can beat this idea to death. He stated he
understands Mr. Hanson is against a "design -build" concept, but he reminded the members this is a
recommendation and "design build' does save time and money.
7. The site work shall be limited to providing for approximately 30 parking spaces lost by the new
building. A minimum drive from Plaza to the new spaces should suffice. This is to minimize any
effect this project has on the park, and at the same time, further reduce costs.
Comments - The site work in ADG's bid of $480,000 included paving all the way from Plaza near
the skate park and a massive area for additional parking. Mr. Corsano suggested to avoid another
tremendous problem, replace only the 30 spaces, which have been plotted and measured, that the
proposed building takes up on the other side to eliminate encroaching on the park, which a lot of the
citizenry and even some of the Commissioners are against. The site work cost of $480, 000 can be
cut dramatically by this suggestion.
8. The cost of this building including: design,
demolition, and remodeling shall not exceed $3.7
cost for this project.
construction, site work, equipment, furnishings,
million. ADG has confirmed that this is a realistic
Comment — Mr. Corsano advised the members could change that price, but this is what he
calculated. ADG has confirmed that this building is feasible to do at whatever number, $3.4 to $3.7
million, but ADG did not include the design cost. He advised he estimated the following: site work,
rather than $480, 000 can be $300, 000 or $350, 000, remodeling could be about . 6 million; cost of
the new building about $2.3 or $2.4 million; the equipment remaining .25 million ($250,000); and
with a conservative number for design added in for a total of $3.7 million. He stated ADG actually
confirmed this amount and commented it is not just a bunch of people throwing out numbers.
May 9, 2012 Police Building Ad Committee Meeting Page 4
Week 9
9. The recommendations, the committee feels, will minimize costs and minimize impact on the
park, but more importantly will solve all the issues of the Police Department.
Comments - Mr. Corsano advised the members can discuss his recommendation and he knows
they will discuss the cost. He explained he has been in construction for twenty-six years, with
experience in the construction of hospitals, which is probably one of the most expensive facilities to
build due to the specialty items. He understands that there are costs related to the proposed police
building such as, a holding cell and Sally Port.
Discussion ensued. The members discussed the amount proposed by ADG. Mr. Lindorff advised
the members received an estimate from ADG's consultant, Construction Consultants & Associates,
Inc. Mr. Lindorff advised he refined his estimate of 7,851 on his spreadsheet because he did not
allow for the thickness of the walls, et cetera, therefore, he agrees with a total of 9,000 square feet
for a proposed new building [handout]. Mr. Ford stated he does not understand why this committee
keeps insisting the proposed remodeling cannot exceed the 50 percent appraised value and stated
that is not true. Limiting the remodeling of the existing building to 4,999 square feet was discussed.
In the discussion, Mr. Ford advised there is a grandfathering clause with FEMA that states at a
certain age, if a building was built at the proper elevation the day it was built, as required by FEMA
at that point in time, then it is grandfathered in. FEMA changes their rules just like the Building
Code requirements change constantly, and then in the last few years, FEMA has changed their
flood plain elevation. The requirements have gone up, but because this building was constructed
according to the flood plain elevations required at the time, the existing building is grandfathered in.
Then the 50 percent rule does not apply. Mr. Ford stated remodeling can be done inside and the
foot print can expand, but any expansion outside of the footprint would have to meet the present
flood plain elevation. Mr. Reeves noted since this issue has come up a couple of times, he
requested the Chairman follow up on the committee's request for the City to obtain an appraisal and
to ask the City to obtain an answer regarding the 50 percent FEMA rule from a neutral party. Mr.
Corsano advised it was Ian Reeves, the architect with ADG, who said that if the existing building is
renovated more than 50 percent then the hurricane changes, would have to made, safety things
would need to be changed, et cetera. Mr. Varney advised before the committee makes a decision,
he agrees the committee should obtain an answer from an independent source. He advised the
committee has heard three different presenters mention the 50 percent rule which applies not only
to the revised FEMA rules, but also the revised State of Florida Building Code requirements. Mr.
Corsano commented his recommendation keeps the renovation of the existing building within those
limits regardless. Facilitator Busby asked the chairman if he accepted the assignment and he
agreed. Mr. Kallao reminded the members that a lot of what the committee has heard was based
on the fact that they did not have a foundation plan for the existing building and the foundation plans
he located show the existing building can withstand 140 mph winds.
Discussion followed regarding the spatial analysis conducted by Mr. Lindorff. Mr. Lindorff stated he
used the police department numbers for his calculation. He did not use any number that he did not
have on a handout. Parking was briefly discussed. Mr. Keith commented that ADG inflated their
figures on the size of the proposed building and their costs. Mr. Keith explained he calculated a
size for the proposed new building by comparing the square footage of the Neptune Beach Police
Department building and the Jacksonville Beach Police Department building, he divided each
department by the number of full time employees which calculated to 220 square foot per employee
for Neptune Beach and approximately 250 square feet per employee for Jacksonville Beach. Mr.
May 9, 2012 Police Building Ad Committee Meeting Page 5
Week 9
Corsano pointed out that Neptune Beach does not have a holding cell or a Sally Port. He recalls
the committee voted to include a holding cell and a Sally Port in the new proposed building and with
a holding cell additional areas are needed, such as a booking room area.
Spatial Comparison (Chief Mike Classey)
Chief Classey pointed out ADG's spatial analysis of 18,000 square feet was rejected by the City and
staff. Chief Classey's staff, senior City staff and ADG, serving as a consultant at the time, reduced
the number to 14,000 square feet. He considers 14,000 square feet adequate to operate the police
department. Chief Classey stressed that the spatial analysis process took several months and was
evaluated over years.
He continued to explain that the "exercise" with Mr. Corsano and Mr. Wolfson was conducted in a
matter of hours and not intended to reconstruct the spatial analysis for the department for the
purpose to be taken to the extent to make a concrete square footage recommendation to the
committee or to the Commission. When they completed the process, Mr. Corsano was adamant in
referring to their sketch as a "feasible foot print", not a floor plan. He understood the purpose of the
exercise was to provide a visual depiction of how things might be laid out in a new proposed
building and that was the extent of it. He noted there was not any specific discussion regarding the
layout in the renovated existing building. He advised the references to the red/black list of items to
be in the new and the old building was not necessarily an all inclusive list. He reiterated that his
comment has been consistent in the discussion that the police department can work with the 9,000
or 10,000 square foot new building and renovation of 5,000 square feet in the existing building. The
total 11,000 square feet proposal for both buildings mentioned at the April 12th meeting surprised
him, but he understands how the number was derived.
Discussion ensued. Mr. Reeves pointed out that Mr. Corsano`s plan figured in an additional 1,000
square feet in his initial sketch for a new proposed building. Mr. Lindorff responded to Chief
Classey's comments. He advised the Chief the list he referred to was distributed to the committee
and was the basis for his calculations in his analysis. Comparing the list to Mr. Wolfson's plan, all of
the critical functions listed in black is in the new building, which leaves all of the functions listed in
red to go into the other building. He considered the chief's comments as questioning his analysis
and the chief's comments indicate he did not like Art's type of plan which was rendered into a
dimension drawing by Mr. Wolfson,
Chairman Varney advised it seems to him that the committee is proposing a new 9,000 square foot
building and a 6,000 square foot existing building of which the members believe 4,999 square feet
could be remodeled. If a portion of the existing building is remodeled or none of the existing
building is remodeled or all of existing building is remodeled, the chief would still get the 14,000
square foot he is requesting because when you add 4999 + 9000 equals a foot short of 14,000. He
would like to hear Chief's reaction to that proposed square footage.
Chief Classey reiterated he has commented that the proposed 14,000 square feet is adequate and
the police department will make it work. He wanted to clarify with Mr. Lindorff that he was not
attacking Mr. Lindorff s analysis at all, if anything he was saying the information that the police staff
provided to the process was not intended to be a redo of the spatial analysis, an extensive project
that took several months. A matter of hours was spent on Art's "exercise" which produced a
May 9, 2012 Police Building Ad Committee Meeting Page 6
Week 9
"feasible foot print". Chief Classey clarified that he was not saying he did not like the plan; he thinks
it is feasible.
Chairman Varney suggested the committee make a recommendation for Art's 9,000 square foot
building, to allow the Commission and the police chief to decide how to carve up the 9,000 square
foot space and to allow the Commission and the police chief decide how to carve up the existing
6,000 square foot space in the existing building. Whether the City wants to spend a lot of money
remodeling or leave some of the building as it is now, or only remodel a portion, then that would be
up to the Commission to do that, but he thinks the combined space is adequate to do the police
function. Chairman Varney felt confident the committee has a pretty good feel of what a proposed
9,000 square foot building is going to cost and the square footage.
Feedback on what was included in the cost estimate form ADG (Stephen Kallao)
Mr. Kallao reported he was unsuccessful in contacting Ian, with ADG. He did speak with Ian's
assistant and Mr. Kallao explained to him he was trying to verify the statement Ian made about the
cost. Mr. Kallao advised the estimated cost to be between $3.6 or $3.8 million.
Mr. Kallao added he spoke to Bill McMahan regarding the GeoTechnical report. By reducing the
proposed building to a one—story building the cost of the foundation would be substantially less, the
pilings would not as deep and the number of pilings could be reduced. The report reflected a cost of
$450,000 site work.
Discussion ensued. Mr. Rule cautioned the committee against comparing a neighboring community
because the missions are different and the characteristics of the community are vastly different.
Chairman Varney called for a five minute recess. The meeting reconvened at 7:31 p.m.
Feedback on average cost / square foot for new construction (Don Ford) [handout]
Mr. Ford advised his handout is a building evaluation data sheet that is used in the building
departments in the United States. The information sheet has been produced for many years
formally by the Standard Building Code Organization, now it is called the International Code
Council. The information is updated quarterly. Mr. Ford explained each jurisdiction has a variable
number; the variable number for Jacksonville is 1.25. Building Departments use this data to
determine the actual cost in their area for certain types of structures. He explained how the chart is
utilized. The City of Atlantic Beach classified the existing police building as mercantile occupancy.
Without a mercantile occupancy that is equal to or even close to what the police department is, he
used the mercantile occupancy and the square footage chart (Mr. Ford is referring to remodeling
the existing building) to get a very low square footage cost. Mr. Ford referred to the numbers listed
under mercantile that vary from $81.90 a square foot to $123.91 a square foot. He deducted the
building valued at $400,000, then using the 50 percent rule it allows very little money to be spent, if
you refer to the chart to find a comparative structure in the chart that is closer to the actual per
square foot cost of a police department building. Mr. Ford advised he spoke with a dozen different
building officials via an internet State of Florida discussion group through the Building Officials
Association and all agreed that those two classifications that he has penned into this chart value
would be where they would value a police station, based on whether it was a high end structure like
Jacksonville Beach Police Department, or a lower end structure like Neptune Beach Police
May 9, 2012 Police Building Ad Committee Meeting Page 7
Week 9
Department. The numbers he wrote out to the side of the handout, $236.40 a square foot times the
1.25, comes out to $295.50 a square foot. The other number, $144, comes out to $180 a square
foot. Mr. Ford's evaluation of the existing building, the accurate cost for the existing building would
range from $180 to $295 a square foot. Chairman Varney asked him if that is what the appraisal for
the existing building would be. Mr. Ford acknowledged the appraisal will probably be around $300
a square foot. Mr. Rule asked if the numbers relate to the value of the current facility or the cost to
remodel. Mr. Ford responded the new construction cost. He stated new construction cost is used
to determine the per square footage cost, but for example under the ADA (American Disabilities
Act), if you remodel to the cost higher than 25 percent of the structure you are required to meet the
ADA requirements. If you remodel a residence, not a mercantile or not an institutional, if you hit 50
percent under existing buildings then you have to remodel the entire structure and bring it up to the
code. These are the numbers that are used to determine those factors and those different issues.
Facilitator Busby asked Mr. Ford if he was suggesting in providing these numbers that these
numbers would be the numbers used to estimate new building construction cost or for the appraisal
in evaluating the remodeling. Mr. Ford responded for both buildings.
Mr. Reeves suggested as the committee progresses in compiling a report that someone should
document the decisions made by the committee for the report. Chairman Varney asked Mr. Reeves
if he had a suggestion for filling his request. Facilitator Busby advised she has some notes and
asked the members to advise her regarding the items that need to be noted. Mr. Reeves wanted
documented Mr. Kallao's report that building a single -story significantly decreases the cost of the
foundation and less piling would be needed, per Mr. Bill McMahan's, Ages Jax., Inc., who
conducted the geotechnical engineering evaluation.
The members discussed various square footage costs.
Action item: Committee recommendation on the minimum square footage that is needed for
updated facilities and expansion considerations.
Action item: Recommend building option.
Chairman Varney made the following motion.
We recommend to build a new "design -build" police building not to exceed 9,000 square feet. The
police department will allocate that space, as required.
The existing building should be remodeled and used for police functions, as required, but not to
exceed 4,999 square feet. The allocation of space and usage to be determined by the police
department.
To minimize the impact to the park, place the new building as far east as possible and provide for
an equivalent number of parking spaces that were lost due to the new construction.
Mr. Corsano seconded the motion.
Discussion ensued.
May 9, 2012 Police Building Ad Committee Meeting Page 8
Week 9
Ford made a motion to close the discussion; second by Lindorff.
The motion made to close the discussion passed.
Chairman Varney's motion carried with eight in support and four voted naye (Ford, Kallao, Keith and
Whittington) and no abstentions. For those that were provided, the dissenters' objections were
noted for the report as follows:
• Mr. Kallao stated that, regardless of the square footage, the
approximately $4 million cost for a police facility is unacceptable.
• Mr. Whittington stated that some of the items discussed made no sense.
Some of the items accommodated go against current trends.
• Mr. Keith noted that the nearby police departments (Neptune Beach,
Jacksonville Beach) should be considered as contemporaries to the
COAB Police Department with an average square footage of 220 square
feet per employee. The numbers really do show everything.
• Mr. Ford did not comment.
Facilitator Busby advised that part of the Charge of the committee is to report back to the
Commission and her intention is to use the recommendations and the information provided from the
nine meetings the committee has held to prepare a five to seven page draft for the members'
consideration and editing. Mr. Rule asked if the draft could be projected on the screen to expedite
the editing process. Mr. Kallao asked if the draft would be available prior to the meeting next week.
Due to the motion that was passed, Chairman Varney asked if the assignment he was tasked with
(to consult with an independent source regarding remodeling the existing police building) was
necessary. Mr. Reeves withdrew his request. There were no objections by the members.
Facilitator Busby advised the next meeting is Wednesday, May 16th. Discussion followed regarding
scheduling the meetings on Wednesdays. If the meeting is extended after the 16th, then the
committee prefers to meet on Thursdays.
Wrap up
Next meeting (meeting #10): Wednesday, May 16th at 6:00 p.m.
Review of action items
Adjournment
There being no further discussion, Chairman Varney declared the meeting adjourned at 8:36 p.m.
a�rney, Chair
Minutes prepared by: Diane Graves