Item A: Workshop-City Hall Complex

Home Browse Search

Summary of sites not evaluated: Site C has several existing improvements on the site and restricted access while other ? nearby sites (A, B, D, E, and F) with similar features seemed better suited to evaluate. G has restricted access (no access on three sides and one-way access on Hwy 99) and ? is over-sized. H would require significant purchase of additional adjacent land from the same owner ? and has substantial existing improvements. I has several existing improvements on the site and other nearby sites (D, E, F) with ? similar features seemed better suited to evaluate. J is a smaller parcel with a potentially undesirable adjacency to a residential area and ? would displace (and require rebuilding of) existing police functions. S was selected to evaluate as the representative small downtown site over K, L, M, and ? N, all of which are within or adjacent to the downtown boundary and inherently share similar constraints due to their size and location. K may have an undesirable adjacency th to the 5 Avenue retail street and is adjacent to a primary railway line. L isn’t as close to other police activities and may have environmental contamination. M may have an undesirable adjacency to the Hult Center and Hilton Hotel. N is owned by the County, which plans to retain ownership of the property (through occupancy and development) for the foreseeable future. O is in the flood plane and could displace more desirable riverfront development. ? R could be an undesirable use in the courthouse district and would not reinforce the ? Great Streets concept and connection to the river. T is considered a prime development site and would not reinforce the Great Streets con- ? cept and connection to the river. U and V have the constraints of smaller downtown sites without the benefit of proximity ? to other patrol oriented activities. COMPARATIVE COST MODELS The patrol facility site evaluation process includes a comparison of likely costs. Since the site selection needs to occur prior to the design of the patrol facility, the cost models are based on assumptions of building size and density, parking configuration, estimated land costs and other factors. All cost models represent total project costs including construction, planning, furnishing, moving, etc. (hard and soft costs), and are escalated to a start of construction in 2010. The design team produced six cost models built on three generic sites, each with 2 variations on density and parking configurations. The generic sites were a half-block downtown, a larger site outside of downtown, and on the City Hall site. The models assumed: All police functions were built in an Essential Services structure ? Exterior building materials could be built less expensively outside of downtown (fewer ? construction constraints and less expensive materials could be employed) Interior materials would be equivalent for all scenarios ? Land costs for downtown were double that of land outside of downtown ($40 per square ? foot compared to $20 per square foot). Options 5 and 6 were modeled on the City Hall site and do not include land acquisition costs. Results from the comparative cost models showed that smaller sites required structured parking (more expensive than surface parking), and multiple floors of building and parking (more expen- sive for structure, elevators, and stairs). Page 6 of 7