v "'~ \)Jyv

FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF:
AGENDA ITEM NO.:
Novmeber 23, 2015
6(g)
"'~v
TO:
SALEM CITY COUNCIL
FROM:
MAYOR ANNA M. PETERSON, CHAIR \)Jyv
POLICE FACILITY COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE
SUBJECT:
POLICE FACILITY COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE PROGRESS REPORT
(\
ISSU E:
Informational report to update the City Council on the status of the Police Facility
Council Subcommittee progress.
RECOMMENDATION:
Information only.
SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND:
On August 31, 2015, the City Council appointed myself and Councilors Bednarz, Dickey
and McCoid to the Police Facility Council Subcommittee to assist and guide staff and
the consultant team in moving the proposed Salem Police Department headquarters
facility forward. Councilor Bennett was appointed to the Council Subcommittee as an
alternate.
The City selected a consultant team led by DLR Group, a national design firm with
experts in public safety facility design , to (a) update existing analyses of Police
Department space needs to benefit work flow and safe community ac<:;ess to police
services; (b) develop evaluation criteria to assess site feasibility; (c) create conceptual
sketches with high level cost estimates of up to three sites to support Council-decision
making; and (d) refine a more detailed conceptual design and cost estimate for the
preferred location .
FACTS AND FINDINGS:
On October 26, 2015, the Council Subcommittee met to receive a brief progress update
and set its second meeting (Attachment 1). The minutes were approved at the Council
Subcommittee meeting on November 16, 2015.
On November 16, 2015, the Council Subcommittee met to discuss the Subcommittee's
work plan, receive a briefing from DLR on the police facility space needs and
recommended size of the proposed facility, discuss proposed siting criteria, and
schedule its next meeting. The attached minutes of the Police Facility Council
Progress Report: Police Facility Council Subcommittee
City Council Meeting of November 23, 2015
Page 2
Subcommittee for November 16, 2015 are being transmitted to Council in draft form,
pending future approval of the Subcommittee (Attachment 2). Materials presented to
the Council Subcommittee by DLR are also attached (Attachment 3). On November 18,
2015, the City issued a press release regarding the outcome of the Council
Subcommittee meeting (Attachment 3).
Attachments:
1. October 26, 2016 Police Facility Council Subcommittee Minutes
2. November 16, 2016 Police Facility Council Subcommittee Minutes (draft,
pending Police Facility Council Subcommittee approval)
3. November 16, 2016 Police Facility Council Subcommittee Meeting
Materials
4. November 18, 2015 Press Release
WARDS: ALL
November 17, 2015
( flY O F
c:-a.IJ,~ --
~~;U~Vl<F
CITY OF SALEM
POLICE FACILITY COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE
Monday, October 26, 2015
5:00- 5:30PM
Salem Public Library - Anderson Rooms
585 Liberty Street SE
1.
Welcome and Call to Order
Mayor Peterson, the Chair of the Police Facility Council Subcommittee, called the Subcommittee
meeting to order at 5:05PM. M ayor Peterson introduced members of the Subcommittee as
Councilors Bednarz, McCoid, Dickey and herself with Councilor Bennett serving as an alternate
member of the Subcommittee.
2.
Discussion Topics
a. Update from Chief Moore
Chief Jerry Moore provided the Subcommittee with a brief update on progress since the
conclusion of the Blue Ribbon Task Force on the Police Facility in May 2015. As directed by
Council, the City issued a request for proposals for an architectural firm, with expertise in police
facility design, to complete a study of the Police Department's space needs and conduct site
evaluations to determine potential locations for the facility to be located. DLR, out of Chicago,
was selected to lead the project with local firm, CBTwo.
To-date, DLR has examined the Police Department's programs extensively to estimate the need
for a 30-40 year facility through four days on-site interviews. DLR recognizes Salem's special
facility needs and larger, regional role. Police staff were reminded that unlike a conventional
office building, the facility will operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and 365 days a year. DLR
is in the process of finalizing the program.
When the size has been determined, the architect will look at sites. Size influences site cost and
how the facility will be configured. Per the direction of the Blue Ribbon Task Force, sites within
1.5 miles of the City center will be looked at but, DLR and CBTwo may look more broadly using
the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) criteria for site selection. These criteria
include cost, site suitability, what is around the site, ease for Police and community members to
get to the facility, etc. At a future Council Subcommittee meeting, members may be asked to
weigh the criteria and prioritize some over others. In summary, the consultant team is doing
what Council authorized as the next phase of work.
Subcommittee members asked questions of Chief Moore:
Q. Did they or will they talk about the issue of clouding the site if the City is considering
building the facility on a specific site? Are they looking at the Civic Center site?
A. They may talk to you about the implications of selecting a site on the price of that site. The
Task Force has recommended that the City not consider the Civic Center site moving
forward .
Q. The first thing they'll do is have us rate the criteria and then, they'll go back and look at
individual sites, right?
A. They'll recommend size based on their experience and look to you for guidance about the
siting criteria. Then, they'll go back and look at the sites.
Q. Do we have some idea about how long we'll be at this? Where are we going and when do
we expect to get there?
A. We are still anticipating a November 2016 bond and moving forward with expediency to get
there.
b.
3.
Schedule Next Meeting
Mayor Peterson introduced the need to establish the next meeting of the Police Facility
Council Subcommittee. The consultant team has informed the City that they will have
information ready and can be available Monday, November 16. The group tentatively
agreed to meet the evening of November 16.
Adjourn
The Police Facility Council Subcommittee adjourned at 5:20PM.
Preliminary Draft - Pending Council Subcommittee Approval
CllY OF
.:::::-1'1.11:.~
~
~~;U;;-;VICE
CITY OF SALEM
POLICE FACILITY COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE
Monday, November 16, 2015
5:30 - 7:30 PM
Public Works Traffic Control Conference Room
555 Liberty Street SE
Council Subcommittee Members
Mayor Peterson, Councilor Bednarz, Councilor Dickey, and Councilor McCoid
Councilor Lewis attended 5:30- 6:45 pm as an observer
Guests
Jake Davis and Kent Larson, DLR Group
Garth Brandaw and Kirk Sund, CBTwo
Staff
Kacey Duncan, Interim City Manager
Chief Moore, Chief of Police
Deputy Chief Steve Bellshaw, Allen Dannen and Courtney Knox Busch
1.
Welcome and Call to Order
Mayor Peterson, the Chair of the Police Facility Council Subcommittee, called the Subcommittee
meeting to order at 5:32 PM. Mayor Peterson asked Subcommittee members and guests to
introduce themselves.
2.
Approval of Agenda
Subcommittee Member Bednarz moved for approval of the Agenda. Mayor Peterson reminded
members that, as a Subcommittee of Council, a second to the motion was not required. The agenda
was approved unanimously.
3.
Approval of Minutes
Subcommittee Member Bednarz moved for approval of the October 26, 2015 Minutes. The minutes
were approved unanimously.
4.
Discussion Topics
a. Council Subcommittee Work Plan
Mayor Peterson directed members to the Council Subcommittee Work Plan in their packets. The
graphic shows the consultant team's tasks, proposed Council Subcommittee meetings, and progress
reports and work sessions with the full Council.
The consultant's work to define the Police Department's space needs, or "program," began in
September. As shown on the work plan, at this meeting, the Council Subcommittee will weigh siting
criteria to inform the next step, the consultant's assessment of site viability against the criteria. Up
City of Salem Police Facility Council Subcommittee: November 16, 2015 Minutes
Page 1
Preliminary Draft - Pending Council Subcommittee Approval
to three sites could be identified for further assessment, rough sketches and building layouts. The
schedule calls for a Subcommittee meeting December 17 to discuss the sites and possible layouts for
the building. Mr. Duncan noted that the schedule is somewhat compressed in order to prepare for
the November 2016 ballot. If Council direction is to move forward with the bond measure, the
schedule shows the period of March to November for the campaign.
Q.
A.
Does the schedule allow enough time for the architecture team to do the work?
Yes. The immediate challenge is making sure we have the appropriate siting criteria identified.
There are a relatively small number of sites that can work for the building program, within the
parameters identified by the Blue Ribbon Task Force.
b.
Initial Observations: Approach to Police Facility Program and Needs Assessment
Jake Davis, of DLR Group, defined Salem's Police service as one of the largest departments in the
State, with a multi-faceted, wide range of services and areas of distinct specialization providing
service to the community and others in the immediate region. In his 20 years of these types of
projects, Mr. Davis reported the value of understanding unique operational differences on a
day-to-day basis to best define the space needs. DLR began to define the department's space
needs in September, through 29 interviews over 4 days with distinct groups inside the
department. This assessment, which included what type of equipment is being used and how it
is being stored, was then applied to growth projections and service needs for a 30 year planning
horizon.
For comparison purposes, the consultant team looked at officers per 1,000 residents in other
state capitals and across the northwest region. Among state capitals with 178,000 to 220,000
residents, Salem's 187 sworn officers falls in the lower end of the range at 1.16 officers per
1,000 residents, compared to other state capitals ranging from 1.68 in Baton Rouge, LA and 3.89
in Richmond, VA. Among regional facilities, Salem falls in the middle of those recently
constructed. On a square feet per officer of building area basis, the current Salem facility falls
below the International Association of Chiefs of Police standard of 400-800 square feet per
officer. The projected new facility would place Salem within the IACP range and mid-range of
peer communities in the northwest.
Q.
A.
Are all these facilities we're comparing Salem to new facilities?
Yes, recently constructed or remodeled. The Eugene facility, as shown, includes the building
they recently renovated and also the other facil ities they use.
Q.
Do you have any data that speaks to the geography, or the size, of these communities?
We haven't done that analysis to-date. There are many factors effecting size of a facility,
including county sheriff coverage within the community.
A.
Q.
A.
Is the current staffing ratio of 1.16 adequate?
Chief Moore responded that a few years ago, we had an artificial goal of 1.5 which proved
unrealistic. If you are asking if we could use more people, are we a little understaffed? Yes.
We are. But, we're staffed consistent to other cities in the region.
Looking toward the 30 year horizon, a facility of about 148,000 square feet would meet Salem's
needs for a multi-functional, urban-based police department. Mr. Davis reviewed a summary
of the recommended Salem Police Department program, which projects growth in sworn
City of Solem Police Facility Council Subcommittee: November 16, 2015 Minutes
Page 2
Preliminary Draft- Pending Council Subcommittee Approval
officers to 260 from the current 189 officers. He added that communities with about 350
sworn officers, start to move away from centralized service to distributed service or precincts.
At between 500 to 600 sworn officers, all communities move to precincts.
5.
Action Items
a. Proposed Siting Criteria and Priority
Mr. Davis introduced the 20 International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) police facility
siting criteria for Subcommittee discussion. Garth Brandaw, of CBTwo, discussed the 20 criteria
as grouped into 11 distinct categories recommended for Salem's site assessment. These criteria
are broadly classified as variables primarily effecting cost, site suitability and location. Ranking
the criteria guides the site assessment. Cost of the site and cost of site development would
include the cost of parking on the site. The individual site would drive the need for structured
parking, surface parking or a combination of both. It would cost about $3.SM for 100 structured
spaces.
Q.
A.
Do these criteria take into account "the Big One"?
Strengthening the facility for earthquakes will be resolved through engineering because the
facility must be built to critical facility standards. If the site's subsurface or soil conditions
preclude construction of such a facility, it would be removed from further consideration.
Subcommittee members shared the criteria that would rise to the top in their individual assessment,
including: service to the City, central location, cost, variables associated with site suitability such as
public access and site visibility, ease of property acquisition and site development cost. Whether
the facility could be a redevelopment catalyst and the potential for urban renewal assistance were
discussed as factors that might be easier to assess as more details are known about the specific
sites.
The consultant team discussed the need for a minimum 3-4 acre site to accommodate the building,
about 300 parking spaces, and vehicle movements on the site. A smaller site could work but would
be complicated and require the building to be more than three floors, which could become counterproductive. For a sense of scale, the team offered the South Block apartment site at about 2 acres
or 86,000 square feet.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Is redevelopment potential really something to consider? Do you have any perspectives from
other communities? Is that a real potential?
In general, police stations are not good magnets for development. Sometimes, however, a
police presence that wasn't there before can be helpful. The community room element of this
proposal and all the activity of the officers moving in and out of the site, could add value to an
area. With urban renewal potential, the project could serve as an institutional anchor,
reducing the risk from the private development perspective of being the first one into an area.
If the City comes in and makes a 40+ year investment, it minimizes the risk in an area .
I'd like to keep the Civic Center site on the list. Is that still possible?
With the added size, it becomes really challenging unless you're willing to go higher up. What
was conceptualized for that site was probably pushing it to the maximum .
The group discussed the merits of considering sites that are not currently available and generally
agreed their preference would be to work with willing sellers.
City of Salem Police Facility Council Subcommittee: November 16, 2015 Minutes
Page3
Preliminary Draft- Pending Council Subcommittee Approval
Asked whether the team should consider cost, location and site suitability as equally weighted
groupings of criteria, members expressed their preference for weighing location and site suitability
criteria over cost. The three most important criteria were confirmed to be: central location, service
to City, and acquisition and development cost. The group reiterated the least important criteria of
the eleven to be: redevelopment catalyst, availability of urban renewal funding and risk.
b. Schedule Next Meeting Date
After a brief discussion of members' availability, the group agreed to meet next on December
17, 2015 at 5:30PM.
6.
Adj ourn
Mayor Peterson closed the meeting with appreciation of the work completed by the DLR Group and
CBTwo . The Police Facility Council Subcomm ittee adjourned at 7:23PM.
City of Salem Police Facility Council Subcommittee: November 16, 2015 Minutes
Page4
November 16, 2015
Salem Police Facility
Preliminary Findings Study
---·
~
r.r
~
. .. :: ••l lt"r.
Architecture Planning
Interior~
~
I~
til=-~
.- ~
Salem Police Facility November 16' 2015
Preliminary Findings Study
O~~cer/1
000
- - --.
-
SALEM EXISTING • • • •
I
SALT LAKE CITY,
I Popolation' 178,000
UTAH
l
·-··--·----------------1
• • • o o
•
•
•
Population: 194,000
~--- ·
Population: 222,000
I
RICHMOND
VIRGINA
1
I
I
MADISON,
WISCONSIN
0
0
•
Population:122,000
Population:158,000
P!.nnanc
lf*<rion
7 50 SWORN OFFICERS
3.89
0
• •
Population based on US Census Bureau Dat a
~
3.0
467 SWORN OFFICERS
2. 11
0
1
~ DLR Group
668 SWORN OFFICERS
•
·-·••
•
·-·
• •
·-·
• •
• ••
•
·-·
• •
.-.
I
I
1.94
•
•
0
0
I
TALLAHASSEE
FLORIDA
• 37 6 SWORN OFFICERS
• •
.-----.
Popolation' 221,000 - j
TOPEKA, KANSAS
.
•
o ~o
Population: 193,000
•
30
·--·
.-.•
•
·-·•
•
•
•
•
•
J
BATON ROUGE ,
LOUISIANA
534 SWORN OFFICERS
0
•
•• •
I
I
SALEM PROPOSED
•· -- •·
• •
-'---------· •
DES MOINES,
IOWA
Residents Served
ARcJ ITEcTs
• • .• • • • • -· ••••••.
0
.5
---· -·
1
296 SWORN OFFICERS
2.43
355 SWORN OFFICERS
2 .25
LS
2
2.5
2
Salem Police Facility November 16' 2015
Preliminary Findings Study
Officer/1 000 Residents Served
I
EUGENE
Population: 160,000
i
I
MEDFORD
I
190 SWORN OFFICERS
1.18
~
Population: 70,677
103 SWORN OFFICERS
1.47
~
I
NAMPA, ID
r
r Population: 86,518
I
Population: 91,119
I
KEIZER
1.59
I
I
REDDING, CA
137 SWORN OFFICERS
1 02 SWORN OFFICERS
1.12
;
38 SW ORN OFFICERS
Population: 37,064
1.02
SALEM
Population:160,000
<Existing)
SALEM
(PROPOSED, 2045)
I
Population:21 0,000
I
I
I
0
187 SWORN OFFICERS
1.16
260 SWORN OFFICERS
1.23
.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Population based on US Census Bureau Data
~ DLR Group AR~J.TecTs
,.,~~lnll:rior\
• •.• .••• ••• • •••••.
3
Salem Police Facility November 16' 2015
Preliminary Findings Study
~ ~~~
Square Foot/Officer
-
.•
SALEM
PROPOSED
SALEM
EXISTING
~
e
•
116,800 SF
190 Officers
EUGENE
0
"
42,000 SF
103 Officers
MEDFORD
- .
•
I
e
<
oe
e
INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION of ------7
CHIEFS of POLICE
STANDARD
0
•
•
•
•
119,000SF
137 Officers
NAMPA, ID
(Remodel of exi!>ting facility)
0
0
28,800 SF
38 Officers
KEIZER
--.
[
SALEM
48,000 SF
(Existing) 1 187 Officers
IT
f\~.~.';l.~!~ ~.T.~
0
0
0
0
0
•c
•
•
•
0
0
•
•
0
•
•
148,000 SF
1
0
200
J
f)
0
(Proposed) 260 Officers
~ DLRGroup
--.. ..................
:
0
I
SALEM
.=•=
400
600
800
1000
4
Salem Police Facility November 16' 2015
Preliminary Findings Study
g~QJJD[}JQ)D~@ ~~~[Q)~
ADMINISTRATION
2015 STAFF
PROGRAM
r
- Hours of operations observation and patrol ride-alongs lead to customized
understanding of needs
- 29 discrete interview groups of police staff across specialty d ivisions
- Development of standardized office and workstation sizes, organized by rank
- Growth projections utilizing population data, statistical information, and IACP
data
- Heavy police leadership participation
- DLR Group Experience with Over SO Police Facilities, Firm & Staff
2045 STAFF
2045 SF
I
Chief/Administration Staff, Command Staff,
Conference Room
8
7,069
12
I
Fleet Vehicles, Planning & Research, Personnel &
Training, Evidence, Garage Spaces, Jail Trans-ROrt, Sally Port, Evidence, Records, Etc.
SUPeORT
INVESTIGATIONS
35
50
31,215
I
Criminal, Street Crimes, Yout h Services,
Crime Lab, Cadets, Volunteers, Crime Prevention, Etc.
47
60
29,801
General Patrol, Downtown Bicycle, Traffic,
Domestic Violence, K-9, Shift Command,
Etc.
138
166
26,3521
~
1
PATROL
I
!
Information Technology, Wil lamette Valley
Communications Center (Regional E911
PSAP & EOC)
wvcc
NON-DIVISIONAL
Locker Rooms, Toilet & Showers, Exercise
Room, Break Room, Storage, Custodial,
Armory Training Room, Etc.
I
FACILITIES
Ancilla')', s ;te, PubHc Space
fQ DLRGroup
~~lnttrion.
I
A RC..H...
IT .........
EC TS
....
-
100
24,904
-
-
21,241
-
-
7,459
305
388
187
260
148,041
~
-----
SWORN OFFICERS
~
TOTAL STAFF
77
5
Salem Police Facility November 16' 2015
Preliminary Findings Study
onduct Site Evaluation (IACP)
Careful consideration must be given to the size, location and flexibility of any existing or potential facil ity site.
Site selection determines the maximum footprint or size of the facility and must, therefore, meet all space needs
requirements. Site location determines accessibility of police facility to the public, police officers, and other
government staff.
Site evaluation and selection must be carefully considered whether exploring the possibility of renovation of an existing facility,
acquisition of an adaptive re-use facility or new construction. According to rea l estate investors, a primary rule in selecting property is
location. This is also true for police facilities. There are many essential components of site evaluation:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Cost of land
Cost of site development
Size and shape of site
Potential for multiple uses
Public access to site (vehicular and pedestrian)
Visibility and views
Proximity to other governmental functions
Response to citizens' needs and concerns - a
neighborhood context
Travel and mileage issues
Positioning of new facility on site
Security
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Noise and traffic impact
Expansion possibi lities
Former use of identified land
Possible ground contamination
Possibility of locating artifacts during sit e preparation &
excavation
Zoning
Utilities I easements
Topography I geotechnical I soi ls
Bodies of water I wetlands I floodplain I st ormwater
control
International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) Police Facility Planning Guidelines: A Desk Reference for
Law Enforcement Executives
~ DLRGroup
~
P\annfnl
lntwion
-.s.l ~
TS
.ARCHITEC
. ... .............
6
Salem Police Facility November 16, 2015
Preliminary Findings Study
RECOMMENDED SALEM SITE CATEGORIES
.........................................
Cost of land
...............
•
.•
Cost of site development
Size and shape of site
Property Acquisition and Development Cost
0
•
•
••
Utilities I easements
Topography I geotechnical I soils
..................••...•••••
Proximity to ot her governmental functions •• o • • • • • • • • • • • • o • • • • • • • • o • • • • • • • • • o .
Central Location, Proximity to Government
Services
Travel and mileage issues
Service to City
•••• •• •••••••••• • •••• ••• ••••••• •• • •••••••••••• •
Former use of identified land
••••••••••
o • • o • • • • • o o • • • o • o • • • • • • • • • o • • • • • • • o
...............
Ease of Acquisition
Response to citizens' needs and concerns - a neighborhood context • • •
Noise and traffic impact •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• • ••••
Neighborhood Compatibility
Possib le ground contamination • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • :· • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Possibility of locating artifacts during site preparation & excavation o o • :
Risk
Potential for multiple uses • • • • • • • • ••• • •• •• • • ••••• •• •••••• •••• ••••• • • ••••••
Redevelopment Catalyst
Visib ility and views
....••••••.•...••...........•..........•.... .••••••.
Public access to site (vehicular and pedestrian) • • • • •
Positioning of new facility on site
o • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • o o • o • • • • • • • •
Community Visibility
Public Access
o o •• o •• o o • •••• o. o •••••• o o o ••••
•
.•..........••.
•
Expansion possibilities
•
Bodies of water I wetlands I floodplain I stormwater control .........
.......... .....•.•....••••••....••............•......••••••••
Zoning
Expansion Potential
0
~ DLRGroup
_........, ......,.,_,
~I
A RCH I TECTS
........
..........
Urban Renewal Assistance Potential
7
Salem Police Facility
Preliminary Findings Study
N ovember
16 201 5
'
~- ~~ leJ:L"f=-.le~ ~.
Cent ral Location, Proximity to Other Government Services (Proximity to other Governmental Functions)
LOCATIO N
- Is the site located conveniently for efficient access t o and f rom t he Civic Center, DA, Court, County Offices?
- Is t he site cent ra l t o t he City?
Community Visibility (Visibility and Views)
LOCATIO N
- Does t he building provide a " presence " in its locatio n?
Ease of Acquisition - M ultiple Parcels/Property Owners, Current Use (Cost of Site Development, Former use of Land Identified)
CO ST
- How easy would it be t o purchase t he property?
- A re there multiple parcels to purchase and combine?
- Are t here current uses t hat would need to be d isplaced or relocated as a result of t he acquisit ion?
Expansion Potential- Room for Future Growth- (Positioning of New Facility on Site, Bodies of Water, Wetlands, Expansion.)
SITE SUITABILITY
- Is t he site large enough to accommodate future developments?
Neighborhood Compatibility (Responds t o Citizen's Needs and Concerns- a Neighborhood Context, Noise and Traffic Impact)
LOCATIO N
- Does t he Police Facility add t o t he neighborhood or detract?
Property Acquisition and Development Cost of Land, Cost of Site Development, Size & Shape of Site, Topography, Utilities)
Size, Shape, Utility & Transportation Infrastructure, Complexity. Includes Cost f or Parking.
COST
- Is t he size and shape of the site conducive to a standard layo ut of a b uild ing, parking, or associated structures?
- Are there off-site improvements t hat wou ld pot entially be req uired?
- What does t he property cost to acquire?
Public Access (Public Access to Site- Vehicular and Pedestrian)
~· - -
SIT E SUITABILITY
- How easy is it for the public to g et to the site?
Redevelopment Catalyst (Potent ial for Mult iple Uses, Zoning)
LOCATIO N
- W ill this site provide a boost to t he neighborhood and spur on other d evelopment?
Risk- Env iro nment al, Permitting, A rcheo logy (Possible Ground Contamination, Possibility of Locating Artifacts)
COST
-Are there any known or potential issues rega rding the previous use of the site o r adjacent properties?
Service to the City (Travel Mileage and Usage)
SIT E SUITABILITY
- Is access in and out of the site easy for police t o get to all parts of the City?
Urban Renewal Assistance Potential (Zoning)
COST
-Is the site within an URA that has f unds available for use in site acquisition?
~ DLRGroup
~
"'-ttre Jrarlon
I"T"
ITE C TS
.ARC
.......H............
8
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
DATE: Wednesday, November 18, 2015
MEDIA CONTACTS:
Allen Dannen, PE, Assistant City Engineer
City of Salem Public Works Department
503-588-62 11, [email protected]
Maureen A. Kenney, Public Relations Manager
City of Salem, City Manager's Office
503-588-6363, [email protected]
City of Salem Obtains Advice From National Expert in Police Facility Design
On Monday evening, the Salem Police Facility Council Subcommittee (Mayor Peterson and
Councilors Bednarz, Dickey and McCoid) met for the second time this year and heard from DLR
Group, a nationwide architectural firm with expettise in police facility design. The DLR Group
revealed its "deep dive" analysis that resulted in a recommended 148,000 square feet facility to
appropriately serve the City's needs for the next 30 to 40 years.
Research and Considerations Supporting Recommendation
DLR's recommendation followed weeks of evaluation that included a four day, on-site visit
where interviews were conducted with more than 29 separate Police staffing groups. The DLR
team also looked at growth projections, population data, statistical information and data from the
International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) to finalize the programming for the facility
and confirm that the program was in-line with other recently constructed facilities and the IACP
standards.
"Our experience working with police agencies all over the country has caused us to expect to see
a facility of this size, if not larger, in a city like Salem," says Jake Davis, AlA LEED AP,
Principal, DLR Group. "The projected size of the police department is well within industry
benclunarks for square feet per swom officer and for officers per 1,000 population-both ratios
are on the lower end of the scale, pmticularly given the complexity and wide range of service
offerings by this large and specialized police agency."
"DLR recognizes Salem' s special facility needs and larger, regional role," says Davis, "Unlike a
conventional office building, Salem's police facility operates 24 hours a clay, 7 days a week and
365 clays a year. In addition, space considerations must be made for specialized functions such as
evidence, forensics, crime lab, interviewing and special teams such as the bomb squad and
S.W.A.T."
Backgt·otmd: Salem's Current Police Operations and Need
Currently, Salem's Police Department occupies 28,000 square feet on the first floor of the Civic
Center, which was built in 1972 when Salem's population was half of what it is today. The
space houses 187 sworn officers. Some critical operations, such as the crime lab and 9-1-1
dispatch center, are located off-site in 20,000 square feet of leased space. Neighboring Keizer
serves 37,064 residents, has 38 swom officers and occupies 28,800 square feet.
"I'm excited to be moving forward with the police ti'1cility plans not only for our department but
especially our conummity," says Salem Police Chief, Jerry Moore. "We are very fortunate to
have the experti se of the DLR Group, who has developed plans for more than 50 police facilities
all across the nation. With the input of DLR and the help and suppo11 of our Mayor, C ity Council
and con1 munity, vve look forward to an appropriate ly sized and modern pol ice facility that will
benefit the citizens of Salem for many years to come.''
Next Steps
Following the presentation from the DLR Group, the Council Subcommittee on the Police
Facility reviewed a series of IACP-based criteria for siting a new police facility. Based on the
Council Subconm1ittee's discussion, criteria such as service to the C ity, central location, and cost
to acquire and develop the property will be some of the top considerations for the consultant
team as they assess possible sites for the new facility. Up to tlu·ee sites could be identified for
further assessment, rough sketches and building layouts. The Subconunittee will meet again in
December to discuss site evaluation.
In thanking the consultant team for their work to date, Mayor Peterson commented, "It 's helpful
to see how much thought was given to each shift, each Police use, and the community's future
growth. This is a good working number to move forward."
The Subcommittee's preliminary work plan calls for initial site sketches and preliminary cost
estimates to come forward to the entire City Council in a January work session.
For more information about this project, please contact: Allen J. Dannen, PE, Assistant City
Engineer, City of Salem, 503-588-6211 or via e-mail at [email protected].
###