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
•