Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/14/1981 Adjourned Meeting ADJOURNED MEETING -- JANUARY 14, 1981 JOINT MEETING WITH COUNTY COMMISSIONERS The Joint meeting of the Yakima City Council and the Yakima County Commissioners was held on this date at 2:00 P.M. in the.Yakima County Courthouse for the purpose of discussing the proposed Joint Law Facili- ties. Yakima Council members present were Mayor Betty L. Edmondson, Lynn Buchanan, Lynn Carmichael and Bruce Crest. Council members absent were Beauchamp, Doty and Hinman. Yakima County Commissioners present were Graham Tollefson, Chuck Klarich and Jim Whiteside. Also present were City Manager Zais, Police Chief LaRue, Fire Chief Carroll, Sheriff Nesary, other Police, Fire and Sheriff Department members, Robert Wil- liams, of Doudna-Williams, Architects, and Dan Smith, Consultant, Fa- cility Services Corporation. City Manager Zais reported that the meeting has been called to discuss the next interim report that has been prepared by the consultants. It has been reviewed by the Committee of the two entities, which consist primarily of Chief LaRue and his staff, Sheriff Nesary and his staff, II/ and City Manager Zais. Mr. Zais stated that the last transmittal re- ceived is a memo from the Committee which outlines its review of the study, some opinions the Committee had about it, some conclusions, and general recommendations. Dan Smith of F.S.C. gave a brief overview of the background of the proposed Law Enforcement Facility Study, what leads up to the current interim report and what it is now saying. He stated that it is a study that takes place in an atmosphere related to the concepts of consolida- tion which really date back to 1973 when S.U.A. undertook a study of consolidation and at that point came up with recommendations relating to its economic feasibility, general efficiencies and essentially came out with a positive recommendation. Since that time other studies have been made with positive recommendations that led up to last year when Doudna- Williams and F.S.C. were requested as a team to take a look at the feasibility of joint use consolidation, sharing, and a joint occupancy of a law enforcement facility. He gave a quick summary of what they were requested to do. This was essentially, to look at the organiza- tional element, make a projection of personnel requirements, make a projection of space requirements and to look at the implications of consolidation, shared usage, etc. Then they were to make recommenda- tions relating to those and come up with a cost estimate as to teims of savings, to do block allocations, look at potential sites and to essen- tially provide the City and the County with a foundation in which they can go forth, if they so choose, to embark with developing a joint law enforcement facility. Mr. Smith then reviewed some of the findings of the study -- referred to charts showing growth projection and pointed out various usages that could be shared jointly or consolidated, such as records, communications, complaints, labs and dark rooms, vehicle main- tenance, training, interrogation rooms, etc. Some involved personnel and others did not. He explained three options that were to be con- sidered. Option 1, talked about space considerations with both City and County being in one building with a line drawn down the middle, more or less sharing just one building but working separately. Option 2, talked about shared usage of things not people oriented -- labs and dark rooms, vehicle maintenance, etc. Option 3, looked at what happened with joint II/ sharing of such things as records, communications, etc. There is also a revised figure called Option 3-A which indicates that communications would essentially remain the same as it is now with other items shared as listed in Option 3. The consultants recommended Option 3 which indicates a space of 45,000 square feet. He reviewed the construction cost under each option, and operations and personnel costs. Mr. Smith summarized his report by indicating that although there would be a cost increase in personnel costs under the consolidation, there would be a reduction in operating costs and a definite one-shot increase in con- struction costs. He then reviewed where we are as to the projection of getting the study finished, stating that they had finished task 7 and into 8 which is into Phase 2, so they are near the end of Phase 2 with some design concept yet to be done. Also, some general floor plans, site analysis and cost estimates -- a cost sharing formula -- how much the County would be responsible for and how much the City would be responsible for in terms of the total cost of the facility and its operation. 251 ADJOURNED MEETING -- JANUARY 14, 1981 JOINT MEETING WITH COUNTY COMMISSIONERS City Manager Zais stated that the Committee's review brought out that they favor Option 3-A, basically the only disparity being that the Sheriff does not believe that communications should be operated as an independent agency at this time. Sheriff Nesary stated that the cost would more than triple the cost of the present Sheriff Department com- munications and he could not recommend that at this time, but believes the rest of the suggested consolidation is desirable. There was discussion regarding going ahead with the Study. It was the consensus of the Committee to continue with the Study. It was also the general consensus of the City Council to continue with the Study. The consultant stated that because they were requested to go a little fur- ther into partial Phase 2 they had essentially provided almost all of Phase 2 and have gone over the estimate by approximately $7,000 or $8,000 and indicated they would like to be assured of getting this extra amount. County Commissioners asked if a'decision has to be made on this date regarding the go ahead with the Study. Commissioner Whiteside, being newly elected, indicated that he would defer to the other two- to make the decision. The County Commissioners asked for about a week to decide whether to go ahead with the Study, and stated they will communicate with the Council when they have made a decision. The meeting adjourned at 3:30 P.M. READ AND CERTIFIED ACCURATE BY DATE OUNCIL MEMBER / .401I 4/ DATE/CA COUNCIL M :ER ATTEST: • . ' 50 .erane' ,721Zf th e2 7 4ZitMj_ . C if CITY RK MAYOR •