Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7.e. City Facilities / Space Needs UpdateCITY OF ROSEMOUNT EXECUTIVE SU101ARY FOR ACTION CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: APRIL 7, 1992 AGENDA ITEM: CITY FACILITIES - AGENDA SECTION: SPACE NEEDS UPDATE NEW BUSINESS PREPARED BY: STEPHAN JILK, CITY ADMINISTRATOR AGENDA REM # 7 ATTACEbUMTS: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF REPORT, AP 0 BY PROCESS SCHEDULE WITH ALTERNATIVES i In 1990 the City completed a master facilities, or space needs, study. The purpose of this study was to look at existing city facilities, City Hall, Fire Station, Public Works Garage and Police Department, to determine their adequacy at the present time, those needs as the City grows and how to best meet those needs in terms of space and costs. The study, completed with the assistance of the architectural firm of Boarman and Associates, city staff and a volunteer citizen committee, provided several recommendations for expansion of existing facilities and construction of new ones. It is our purpose to bring this back to the Council for discussion of the report and the alternatives for moving ahead with the 'first phase of the implementation as outlined in the report. We have drafted a tentative schedule outlining process timelines if the council chooses to proceed with action on any of these items including alternatives. RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at this time. Continue discussion at April 21, 1992 meeting. COUNCIL ACTION: November 1, 1990 City of Rosemount 145th Street West Rosemount, MN 55068 RE: Needs Assessment Study Dear Mayor and City Council: On behalf of Boarman & Associates, I would like to express our appreciation for the opportunity to conduct the Space Needs Analysis for the City of Rosemount. It has been a pleasure working with your excellent staff. Their - input ,and dedication to this study process serves the community well. I would also like to extend a special thanks to the Citizen's Advisory Committee for their valuable contribution and effort in the process. The City, in its endeavor to balance the needs and the demands of City services in relationship to their current facilities, has identified the necessity for a comprehensive study to analyze space needs and space utilization at City Hall, Public Works, Police and the Fire Department. The business of government is to serve its constituents. Tax payers' investment in staff, equipment and facilities warrants efficient, cost effective, and functional facilities in a convenient and appropriate location. The architect is charged with assisting and advising the staff and council in planning facilities which meet the City's mission and responsibility. Rosemount retained Boarman & Associates to provide a municipal study, which entailed working closely with the City teamleadership and the Citizens Advisory Committee in establishing the basic data for an evaluation of space needs, master plan options, block plans, plan options, site definitions, and cost impacts. The principle objective of the report is to determine the current and future space needs for City Hall, Police, Public Works, and the Fire Department. It is our intent that the information contained within the report will assist the City of Rosemount in making informed decisions regarding their need for improved facilities now and in the future. Sir lygo4�6� Aid R. Vice President Boarman & Associates, Inc. l DRK:mlb L U:. E•T ... .�E:. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CITY BACKGROUND Surrounded by "high growth" suburbs, Rosemount has retained its small rural town image. It is evident by the growing number of citizens moving into Rosemount from the cities of Eagan, Burnsville, and Apple Valley that Rosemount could easily evolve into an "outer ring" suburb. Rosemount seems to be in transit, with these booming suburbs to its North and its West while to its South and to its East there are the rural towns of Coates, Farmington, and Lakeville. Looking at the low density of people per area it is clear why Rosemount is thought of as a rural area. Rosemount has a population of 9,000 in its 36 square miles, while Eagan, with the same area, has five times the population. It is evident that this cozy image comes both from the private and public areas of the community. Most residents associate the downtown area of Rosemount with its rural image. These privately owned businesses develop Rosemount's sense of community and fellowship. This along with the awarded school system, outstanding city services, with regards to police and fire protection, and the availability and use of the parks and recreation areas keep Rosemount a highly refined rural town. The population of Rosemount is currently at 9,000 and is expected to increase to 12,000 by the year 1995, 15,000 by the year 2000, and, 20,000 by the year 2005. As the population grows, more retail/commercial development will be attracted to Rosemount as the support base for goods and services increases. Though population growth and development are the underlying framework for determining staffing needs, service philosophy, tax base, infrastructure, projected land use, and community priorities all impact City departments. RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS The architect, having projected the future staffing needs and space needs for the City, tested those results against the current municipal site as well as alternate site locations. Four site master plan options were reviewed and discussed thoroughly with staff and the Citizen's Advisory Committee. Taking into account City growth, long range planning, land use, and cost, the Citizens Advisory Committee reached a concensus in favor of the following option as the most appropriate solution for Rosemount's long term goals and objectives. -2- LONG TERM MASTER PLAN 1. FIRE STATION MOVES TO A NEW FACILITY ON A 3 -ACRE ALTERNATE SITE. * Rosemount's fire protection needs can best be served by building a new facility in a centralized site. A new station located in the west side of Rosemount where residential development is concentrated will be able to meet the City's needs more effectively and efficiently. * In this new location the Fire Department will yield a larger number of volunteers who live in the immediate area of the station, therefore, improving the Fire Department's response time. * A new facility would adequately house the City's existing vehicles as well as provide space for future fire apparatus. A new facility would also be able to ccommcdate the expanded and expanding administrative, training, and operational needs. * The Phase I construction of a new Fire Station will maintain excellent short-term coverage to urban residential areas of Rosemount while keeping options open for future expansion when there would be a need for an additional satellite station. * The present Fire Station location does not and will not fit well into the Crry growth trends. The current use of land surrounding" the existing station is not conducive to the recruiting of volunteers. Over time this lack of volunteer personnel will have an increasingly negative effect on the Fire Department's response time. 2. PUBLIC WORKS MOVES TO A NEW FACILITY ON A 10 -ACRE ALTERNATE SITE. * The relocation of the Public Works facility would be consistent with the City's long range land use plan to maintain a "greenway" connection from City Hall to adjacent leisure and recreational areas of the City. * The relocation of the Public Works Department will allow for the potential expansion and future redevelopment of other municipal facilities on the existing municipal site. * Moving the Public Works facility away from the City Hall omits the visual and functional conflicts that exist with the Public Works Department's outside storage, fueling, and heavy vehicular traffic from the City Hall site. * Relocation would allow the Public Works Department to consolidate its facilities in one location to maximize efficiency and minimize duplication. -3- * A 10 acre site would allow for future expansion. * A new facilit�r wouiC provide service, security, and protection for the City's significant vehicle and equipment investments as well as provide a functional environment for its Public Works employees. 3. CITY HALL/POLICE EXPANDS ON EXISTING MUNICIPAL SITE * This allows the City staff to expand and augment its recent investment in a new City Hall to its fullest. * The existing location of City Hall and Police Facility enforces and serves as a catalyst to the historic downtown area. * The relocating of the Public Works Department and the Fire Department allows for future expansion of City offices and Police either at the existing City Hull or into other vacated buildings on the site. MASTER PLAN PHASING The master plan determines the long-range approach to public facility development. The phasing plan indicates how the city can systematically move toward a comprehensive solution. The phasing plan is divided into increments of 5-10 year, 10-15 year, and 15-20 year periods. It is fundamental to the success of this plan, that any early phase, or short term solutions should be consistently compatible with the long-term masterplan. That planning principle eliminates disjointed waste and allows the evolutionary development of the final plan. It is also important to understand that the phasing plan is flexible and serves only as a guide. Implementation of the plan is dependent on actual population growth, city development, and service policy. The following table best illustrates the phasing plan in terms of the anticipated plan of action and the estimated cost impacts: 52 �•: �~ ti �.� S� _ ��CC �tl• b.W Mi 'gL{. m �� W 'QO g 2 u: QQ QQ QQQ�2Q 25 2S25iS2S7b N yy��O H♦♦p�' ¢«3 yNMMZ d O1 Cd QQQQQQ Q 2Sb2GZri 3 f' 1!ppN Ol OI O MMMNM M y� QQQ (iy3 tq{2oS�s®3 0 NMMM M Y 03 spq wig. �.Q Q M .. • — a. O 8 g g g g g g O 0 6 6 8 d� Ulm g a� g pg 8 �.g S q 'w 10 e3 �1 ♦ 1� g g g 8 p0 OZ affi Ok r S • iS A` id1111va .Q -< k • 14 CO Cd E r 'bS2 mC mh u� d o 2 z W< LL S "$ 2S 2S 25, 252525 x17i`�d2� w sv��t175iGiiS log 40 1z T= M W h 8 W o iYY! it1 �.. yi SSS222 cd ��=fag o .� Sidi k4 o W: • W e o wb o W N a W tl' O$ a o QQ 52 52 g$2525$n25di jS22 pW25W WgFF$, aW25W SiyNB�ffiy i^c} QQ e Wa25Wid'O o y CC W dZNZ ez5 Z z N N O Z==F ~» Ii! y 2 vc1 O N N M IP a `�Z ~ O M N M y~2 u: n e r� � 2 y C6 � � 3 � ^ o • xp � m i Z ZZ y: 41 LL H w Vj O r OCC 2 W z 2 W w <� W 2B rL < W LL C {v- :5 6 J G LU w O W¢ �wQi�LLK C7.O.Y W ��=b W r �zgZW:$�ii.�,�. -i m2p�� W. C W < OQ ILL �.IIITTTJJ w < `_..pa V "� Z 4 t-tlyONit1�2tl W N y m"�jF�; 2 �< v1Fp<.1 LL cc - G �..1 Zul N 2 W V U y>! J V m U O p O W LL Q 0. z � 02 U a OwS2i z < W¢ xx gg MQ U i Z o < . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q oz <oEUI 0 = ` L6a to i- U J 4 • FACILITIES DISCUSSION/PROCESS March 19 1992 Notes: Steve Jil April 7 - City Council receives update from Administrator and discusses alternatives April 21 - City Council again review alternatives, directs staff to proceed with option chosen: Alt. #1 Do Nothing Alt. #2 No Referendum - Lease/Buy Alt. #3 Referendum 10. Fire Station and Equipment 10. Fire Station'Only 0. Fire Station, Equipment, and Public Works Remodeling Alt. #1 No Referendum - Do Nothing - no further action necessary at this time. Alt. #2 No Referendum - Lease/BUY May 5 Council reviews preliminary costs as shown in report (study). Architect is either chosen or RFP is approved to select architect. May 19 If architect was chosen approve contract - direct to move ahead with completion of plans/cost estimates. Discuss financing process June 2 - If architect is being selected with RFP process - council approves selection of architect and contract to proceed with plans/cost estimates. Aug. 4 - Plans/Cost estimates complete - approval by Council. Leasing company proceeds with contract,architect prepares bid documents. Authorize bid letting on August 4. Sept 15 - Bid Awards FACILITIES--- DISCUSSION/PROCESS PAGE 2 Oct 15 - Construction begins. Oct 15, 1993 - Construction complete. Alt. #3 Referendum - Including E ui ment May 5 - Council reviews preliminary costs as shown in report. Architect is chosen or RFP for Architect Services is approved. - Fire Department given approval to develop specifications for aerial truck. - Staff given approval to negotiate a price for land. May 19 - If architect chosen, approve contract. Architect to move ahead with preliminary drawings and cost estimates for referendum. June 2 - If architect is being chosen by RFP - Council approves selection of architect and contract to proceed with plans/cost estimates. July 7 - Plans/cost estimates complete approved by Council, including equipment estimate. Set referendum date and ballot questions. Prepare definitive Referendum schedule Direct community awareness program July 7 - Sept 15 Prepare newsletters, brochures, public information releases. Citizen committee works in committee to get word out and inform voters. Sept 1 - Primary Election / Referendum Oct 6 - City Council orders plans for facility(ies) to be completed. FACILITY DISCUSSION/PROCESS PAGE 3 Dec 2 - Council approves plans and specs. Orders bids to be ,received on January S. Jan 20 - Bids awarded. Feb 20 - Construction begins. Feb. 28, 1993 - Construction complete. FACILITIES - OPTIONS TO CONSIDER March 19, 1992 NOTES: STEVE JILK 1. Do Nothing. don't consider any changes to city facilities at this time. Pro - no additional cost no political fall out - no issue with additional taxes Con - Space in City Shop is to the point of being dangerous space is being rented from U of M - space at school district is gone - Fire Station location and size is an issue which must be addressed. Study showed location is a issue for response time. Size is an issue because of equipment. - Equipmentshouldbe replaced and to replace it now without looking at larger station could cause safety issues. 2. Replace Fire Station without Referendum. This could be done through a. lease/buy agreement with a leasing company. Pro - A referendum is not needed - This can be put together quickly - Can add fire equipment on without referendum. Con - Voters may consider this a "way around" them possibly saying no to a referendum. Cost may be 1t to 2$ higher than other method because of interest rates charged by leasing company. 3. Replace Fire Station with Referendum Pro - If approved the confidence of voters is high - Cost would be it to 2% less than lease/buy option - Community is made aware:of problems and issues. Con - Takes longer to go through process May notreceiveapproval and problems are real. If referendum fails problems are still there.