The current Carmel Police Department building was constructed in 1967. As such, at 50 years old, this facility requires improvements to maintain functionality, modernization to accommodate current equipment, and an expansion to properly house police operations.
Specific areas that fall into these categories are: the evidence processing and property areas, which has inadequate space and poor ventilation; as noted in prior audits; the dispatch room, which is no longer functional nor safe; and the Emergency Operations Center (EOC), which is outdated and poorly situated in the basement. In addition, the facility needs improvements to meet federal Americans with Disability Act (ADA) regulations, repairs to leaking roofs, upgrades to electrical and mechanical systems to meet current Building Codes, additional space for a proper utility room, and more office and multi-use space.
Over the past few months, Kasavan Architects and City staff, evaluated four (4) expansion alternatives each with advantages and disadvantages and a wide range of conceptual construction costs. The four (4) floor plan options are attached; however, it should be noted that these are very preliminary plans and the architect will need to refine the floor plan layouts as the design phase progresses.
The City Council is now only being asked to choose one of the four options because, until one of these “big picture” schematic design options is selected, final design plans and preparation of bid documents cannot effectively advance towards construction.
Option #1 is the original concept developed by staff prior to the architect's input and consists of two distinct components. Inside the building, the dispatch room would be reconfigured and modernized - a 257 square foot renovation. Outside, the building would be expanded into the adjacent, open patio to the southeast of the building to provide space for evidence processing and property storage. This "bare bones" option addresses the minimum critical needs for today's police operations, but does not address other important needs nor future expansion needs.
During meetings with the architectural team, a rendering of the original building’s future build out concept was reviewed, which led to the idea of utilizing the existing planter area next to Junipero, just north of the plaza entry steps, as an alternative expansion area as it was originally conceived in 1967. Also physically adjacent to the existing building, this planter area has 50% more space than the southeast patio.
Option #2 would construct the expansion area at the main level grade above the top of the existing planter walls. While superior and more cost-effective than Option #1, Option #2 would not prevent the possibility of having to expand the police building again at some point in the future as police operations continue to diversify, as anticipated.
Option #3 expands the Option #2 concept by constructing both upstairs and downstairs areas, both within the planter footprint, creating three times more expansion space than originally planned, and provides significant space programming opportunities and flexibility over a very long term. A key advantage of Option #3 is that the EOC would be relocated from the basement to the upper level of the expansion area, and Public Works could then occupy the abandoned EOC space.
Option #4, also known as the full build-out, would include both the two-story addition in the planter area (as per Option #3) as well as the original southeast patio expansion area (as per Option #1).
Options #2, #3, and #4 include a 391 square foot renovation to the interior of the building for reconfiguration of the dispatch room, reconstruction of a restroom to meet ADA requirements, modifications to communications and electrical systems, and emergency exit stairs, depending on the selected option.
Options #3 and #4 appear to be very long term solutions for police operations and may be more fiscally-prudent in the long term over Options #1 and #2 because Options #1 and #2 may not provide sufficient space for future police operations during the remaining life of the original building. Options #3 and #4 have added benefits of a modernized EOC and much needed office and storage space for Public Works to expand into the area vacated by the EOC.
While this Project is in the early design phase, it is not too early to consider impacts to Police and Public Works operations resulting from the future contractor’s staging area and construction operations. Options #1, #2, or #3 would isolate the expansion to one fenced-off construction area along the parking spaces along Junipero; however, Option #4 would also require construction operations all along the south side of the Police building and construction vehicle access from Torres Street; thus, a temporary public lobby may be required from either the north side of the building or in an adjacent, temporary trailer.
The four options are tabulated below:
Option
|
Key Space/Improvements
|
Added Square Feet
|
Initial Cost
Estimate
|
1
|
Small Property, Evidence Processing, and Utility Rooms
|
966
|
$750,000
|
2
|
Larger Property, Evidence Processing, and Utility Rooms, plus one Office
|
1,535
|
$1,000,000
|
3
|
Same as Option #2, plus Modernized EOC, 2 more Offices, and space for Public Works
|
3,032
|
$2,000,000
|
4
|
Same as Option #3, plus Multi-Use/ Training Room and Events Coordination Room, plus more space for Public Works
|
3,998
|
$2,500,000
|
All options have distinct advantages and disadvantages as follows:
Option
|
Advantages
|
Disadvantages
|
1
|
- Least Cost
- Meets Current Critical Needs
|
- Minimal Expansion Area
- Possible Future
Expansion
- Outdated EOC Remains
- No Expansion for PW
|
2
|
- 50% More Space than #1
- Superior to Option #1
- Cost-Effective/Economy of Scale
|
- Possible Future
Expansion
- Outdated EOC Remains
- No Expansion for PW
|
3
|
- Long Term Solution
- New EOC Complex, Upstairs
- 2 Story Addition in 1 Location
- Expansion Space for PW
|
- More Costly than #1, #2
|
4
|
- Long Term Solution
- New EOC Complex, Upstairs
- Large Expansion for PW
|
- Most Costly Option
- Construct in 2 Locations
- Need Temporary Lobby
|
If Option #3 or #4 is selected by Council, Kasavan Architects’ professional services agreement will need to be amended at a future date due to the increase in the scope of the design effort. Additional tasks, a fee increase, and schedule impacts, if any, would be negotiated prior to a change order being presented to Council for approval. At this time, it does not appear that Options #1 or #2 would trigger a scope and fee increase for the architect beyond supporting this schematic alternatives evaluation.