HomeMy WebLinkAbout0308_001MINUTES
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
APRIL 9, 1991
I. ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. Present at the meeting were:
Mayor Gerald L. Farley; Trustees Mark Busse, Timothy Corcoran, Leo Floros,
George Van Geem and Don Weibel. Absent from the meeting was: Trustee
Ralph Arthur. Also present at the meeting were: Village Manager John Fulton
Dixon, Assistant Village Manager John Burg, Finance Director Dave Jepson,
Assistant Finance Director Carol Widmer, Public Works Director Herb Weeks,
Deputy Public Works Director Glen Andler and Public Works Administrative Aide
Lisa Angell; 45 persons in the audience and three members of the press.
H. MINUTES
The Minutes of the Committee of the Whole meeting of March 26, 1991 were
accepted and filed.
There were no citizens to be heard.
M °.
Village Manager Dixon gave an overview of the four bids for the new Refuse and
Recycling Contract. He said the bids were very competitive with three companies
lower than the current contractor.
Deputy Public Works Director Glen Andler then described the current service
provided by the Village for single-family and multi -family units. He also described
the proposed system under the new Contract. He said the Recycling Program
would be expanded with all metal cans including bi-metal as well as three types
of plastics. He said the Village will pay for bulk materials. He said there will
be two special pick-ups; in the spring and in the fall, with unlimited materials to
be picked up. He said there would be two bonus weeks during which residents
would be allowed three containers instead of the one container. There would also
be unlimited brush pick-up. A sticker will be used for yard waste, and grass could
be placed in biodegradable bags or in a can with a sticker.
The multi -family would pay by the container rather than by the unit as it is
handled currently. The Village would pay only one-half of the first pick-up in a
week and none of the second pick-up in the week. Bins would be provided at
multi -family complexes to allow for commingling of all the various recyclable
materials. There would be a grace period from August 1 through January 1
during which single-family homes would be allowed two containers.
Ken Westlake, the Chairman of the Recycling Commission, wholeheartedly
endorsed this new proposed program. He said the Recycling Commission voted
unanimously, 7-0, to adopt this system. Mr. Westlake focused on the enhanced
Recycling Program and the pay -by -bag program. He indicated that corrugated
cardboard could be added to the program in the future. Mr. Westlake said be
knows of 11 towns in the Chicago metropolitan area that use the pay -by bag
program which has greatly reduced the waste stream in these communities. He
said this program will give those who recycle even more incentive and will
encourage those who do not recycle to participate. He feels a volume -based rate
is more equitable and will provide a benefit for seniors. He then answered the
various concerns about fly-dumpin& theft of stickers and so on.
Finance Director Dave Jepson then gave a detailed report regarding the financial
impacts of the various alternatives. He indicated that there would be a strong
incentive for recycling and that 75-80% of the residences could get by on the one
container if they actively recycle.
Village Manager John Dixon then gave a wrap-up on the proposed program. He
indicated that the Village would try to educate the residents on ways to cut down
on the volume of refuse. For example, the Village would publicize the
methodology for getting a name off the junk -mail list. Mr. Dixon also noted that
residents could be provided information on types of products which have less
packaging. He strongly recommended adopting the proposed one container system.
The Committee asked questions about the proposed program and the various
financial alternatives provided by the bids.
Trustee Floros asked if the Village could make recycling mandatory. Mr. Andler
said it would be a major problem policing such a program. Trustee Floros said
he does not see it as a function of the Village to tell residents what type of
products to buy. He considers garbage a basic service which has always been
covered by Property Taxes.
Trustee Weibel asked what kind of cardboard would be added and when.
Mr. Andler said the specifics of this program ' have not been worked out yet.
Trustee Weibel said it appears that it has been more difficult to get the multi-
family dwellings to participate. He asked how the Village would get them to
cooperate. Mr. Andler said the onus would rest with the landlords.
N
Trustee Busse asked which towns have a pay -by -bag system. Mr. Andler listed
some of the communities. Trustee Busse asked if these communities had
unlimited garbage service previously. Mr. Andler said yes and indicated that half
of these communities have seen a reduction in the cost for refuse disposal.
Trustee Busse said he sees a problem for families in the proposed one -container
program. He noted this has always been a free service.
Trustee Van Geem asked if the Village could allow two containers per week. Mr.
Jepson said if all houses had two bags, it would be a losing proposition. However,
if the homes averaged less than the two bags, there could still be significant
savings. Trustee Van Geem said that he would prefer to allow two bags and then
review the program at a later date. He felt that recycling should be voluntary.
Mayor Farley then opened the floor to public comments.
Eleven individuals spoke regarding the proposed program. Three were in favor
of the program proposed by the administration while eight opposed the program.
Those who spoke against the proposed program either were in favor of a two
container limit or unlimited garbage disposal.
The public comments were concluded at 10:22 p.m. Mayor Farley called a recess
from 10:22 p.m. to 10:30 p.m.
Trustee Corcoran said that if someone can afford to purchase items, that
individual can also afford to pay the cost to throw out the garbage. He felt that
the only way to get residents totally involved in such a program is through
economics. He said this program could save $2 million, which would pay for the
Human Services budget for six years or ten Police Officers and cars for three
years. He said he would like the Village to go to a one container system but
consider a larger 45 gallon container with wheels like is done in Chicago or a
longer phase-in for the program.
Trustee Floros could not support the one container program. He felt he could
support a two container program with the addition of cardboard. He felt that as
much as possible should be built into the Property Tax.
Trustee Weibel did not feel the program should be implemented quite as quickly.
He agreed with the two container program. He suggested charging for
refrigerators and other appliances. He supported the spring/fall unlimited pick
up but suggested doing away with the two bonus weeks. He also suggested that
the Village work with the managers of the multi -family units to encourage
residents to recycle.
Trustee Busse would like to expand the Recycling Program to include cardboard,
mixed paper and anything beyond that. He also agreed with the program to
educate the public on how to cut down on waste. However, he felt that a two
container limit was more acceptable.
-3-
Trustee Van Geem asked what the financial ramifications of the two can limit
would be. He said he would like to stay with two cans for a one-year period to
see how this program would work.
Village Manager Dixon suggested pursuing a two -can limit with the low bidder.
The Committee agreed with this proposal noting that the two bonus weeks should
be eliminated. Village Manager Dixon suggested including bulk items and
unlimited brush free of charge.
Mr. Jepson recommended charging residents for all yard waste bags the same as
the current system under the proposed two can limit.
Manager Dixon then brought up the recommendation to hire a Waste Coordinator
for this program. Trustees Floros, and Weibel supported this position. However,
the Committee requested further information on this position with a report and
discussion on April 16.
V. DISCUSSMN OF AUTD-NAUD AAHR AlEM READING SYS=
Village Manager Dixon recommended the purchase of an Automated Water Meter
Reading System for cornmercial, industrial and multi -family accounts.
Mr. Andler then explained the proposed Automated Water Meter Reading System.
Trustee Van Geem asked about the potential cost savings. Mr. Andler said there
would be a ten-year payback just taking into account the deletion of a part-time
meter reader and data entry costs totalling approximately $13,00 per year. Trustee
Van Geem indicated he would not get that excited about a ten-year payback.
Village Manager Dixon indicated another one of the problems is the multiple
attempts to read meters and also tampering with the meters.
Trustee Van Geem said he cautiously goes along with the recommendation.
Trustee Weibel asked what type of installation problems there would be with
residential versus commercial. Manager Dixon said he is not recommending
single-family installation because it is not cost-effective.
Trustee Corcoran asked what guarantee there would be for a system like this. He
also asked what failure rate there is. Mr. Andler said the towns which have
adopted this system have been virtually problem free. He indicated this is also
true with the test system here in the Village.
Trustee Busse asked if this meter reading can be done with regular phone lines.
Mr. Andler said yes.
4-
k
Trustee Corcoran asked if we charge for damaged meters or tampering.
Mr. Andler said yes, if we can prove it. He indicated that the Village would have
to make sure the Village updates the Ordinance to cover such eventualities.
The Committee approved the installation of the Automated Water Meter Reading
System for commercial, industrial and multi -family accounts.
Manager Dixon indicated that there will be an Executive Session at 9:00 a.m. on
Saturday, April 13, to discuss litigation.
VII. +Q'lgt BUSINESS
Trustee Van Geem asked a question about the draft version of the Library
Resolution.
Trustee Van Geem also indicated he had received a memo regarding bids for the
Historical Society building. Manager Dixon said the earlier bids were rejected and
additional bids were received this morning.
Trustee Weibel indicated that an accident had occurred at the corner of Euclid
and Burning Bush. He asked the Officer on the scene if he felt that the absence
of left -turn lanes had caused the accident. The Officer indicated yes. Trustee
Weibel said that another accident three weeks ago was also caused by the lack
of no left -turn lanes.
Trustee Van Geem wished Trustee Arthur well because he will be undergoing
surgery.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:35 p.m.
JPB/rcw
Respectfully submitted,
C"F-
JOHN P. BURG
Assistant Village Manager
-5-
Village of Mount Prospect
Mount Prospect, Illinois
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: John Dixon, Village Manager
Chuck Bencic, Director of Inspection Services �-~
FROM: Jeff Wulbecker, Engineering Coordinator jA-
DATE: April 10, 1991
SUBJECT: Rainfall Data for Detention Requirements
The Village's existing ordinances require that the amount of storm water detention be
determined using the "... the one hundred (100) year frequency rainfall as published by the
U.S. Weather Bureau for this area." The U. S. Weather Bureau data used by the Village
is taken from Technical Paper 40 (T.P. 40). T.P. 40 was published in 1961. In an attempt
to update this data, the Illinois State Water Survey published Bulletin 70, "Frequency
Distributions and Hydroclimatic Characteristics of Heavy Rainstorms in Illinois," in 1989.
Bulletin 70 increases the amounts of rainfall for a given period based on more current
rainfall measurements. I recommend that we incorporate the Bulletin 70 data and future
updated information from the Illinois State Water Survey into our ordinances. Using
Bulletin 70 data for detention design will more accurately model current rainfall trends.
This will cause the required detention amounts to increase, thus providing a greater safety
margin against flooding.
To implement this, I recommend that the Village Code be modified as follows:
Section 22.102.B.4
Replace "... the one hundred (100) year frequency rainfall as published by the U.S.
Weather Bureau for this area."
With "... the most current one hundred (100) year frequency rainfall data as
published by the Illinois State Water Survey for this area."
Section 22.102.B.5
Add to the end: "..., except as noted in this ordinance."
Village of M. int Prospect
Mount Prospect, Illinois
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Village Manager
FROM: Engineering coordinator
DATE: September 17, 1990
SUBJECT: Rainfall Data
As Chuck Bencic instructed, I have prepared 2 rainfall data tables,
for your use. The first table uses data from the U.S. Weather
Bureau, Technical Paper No. 40, which is the data presently used
by the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District. The second table
uses data from the Illinois State Water Survey, Bulletin 70, which
is the data presently used by the Illinois Department of Transport-
ation.
The storms are basically defined by the statistical chance of the
storm to occur in any given year. Thus:
A 100 year storm has a 1% chance of occurring in any year.
* 50 year storm has a 2% chance of occurring in any year.
* 25 year storm has a 4% chance of occurring in any year.
* 10 year storm has a 10% chance of occurring in any year.
* 5 year storm has a 20% chance of occurring in any year.
A 2 year storm has a 50% chance of occurring in any year.
A 1 year storm has a 100% chance of occurring in any year.
'Jeff Wulbecker
xc: Chuck Bencic, Inspection Services Director
JW/m
RAINFALL (INCHES) FOR GIVEN RECURRENCE INTERVAL
SOURCE: U.S. WEATHER BUREAU
TECHNICAL PAPER NO. 40
1
STORM I
DURATION'
RECURRENCE
INTERVAL
-
(HOURS)
1 YR.
2 YR.
5 YR.
10 YR.
25 YR.
50 YR.
100 YR.
0.5 i
0.96
1.13
1.28
1.55
1.68
1.97
2.21
1
1.23
1.43
1.77
1.97
2.29
2.51
2.77
2
1.47
1.68
2.09
2.38
2.69
2.97
3.31
3
1.55
1.80
2.27
2.62
2.92
3.26
3.61
6
1.80
2.11
2.64
3.00
3.50
3.85
4.25
12
2.07
2.48
3.09
3.50
4.00
4.43
5.00
24
2.39
2.81
3.50
4.00
4.67
5.20
5.69
RAINFALL (INCHES) FOR GIVEN RECURRENCE INTERVAL
SOURCE: ILLINOIS STATE WATER SURVEY
BULLETIN 70
STORM I
RECURRENCE INTERVAL
DURATION'
(HOURS)
1 YR.
2 YR.
5 YR.
10 YR.
25 YR.
50 YR.
100 YR.
0.5
0.91
1.11
1.41
1.66
2.06
2.39
2.78
1 i
1.15
1.41
1.79
2.1.1
2.61
3.04
3.53
2
1.46
1.78
2.26
2.66
3.28
3.82
4.42
3
1.56
1.92
2.43
2.88
3.57
4.14
4.80
6
1.86
2.28
2.88
3.36
4.20
4,86
5.64
12
2.16
2.64
3.36
3.96
4.80
5.64
6.48
24
2.40
3.12
3.84
4.32
5.52
6.48
7.44
Village of Nuount Prospect
Mount Prospect, Illinois,M,
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: John Fulton Dixon, Village Manager
FROM: David C. Jepson, Finance Director
DATE: May 9, 1991
SUBJECT: Flood Prevention Rebate Program
During discussions of the Village Flood Study, a recommendation was made to establish a
rebate program for residents who initiate flood mitigation or flood prevention measures for
their own property. The reasons for a program of this nature are that it encourages
individual property owners to take the initiative in trying to remedy the part of the problem
that they can control and because some areas of the Village may not be covered by the
recommended flood control projects. The recommendation also included a proposal to
provide incentives to encourage non-residential properties to provide detention on their
properties. Accordingly, the 1991/92 budget includes $100,000 for residential reimburse-
ments and $100,000 for non-residential reimbursements for these projects,
The City of Des Plaines has had a residential rebate program in effect for the last year.
Their program is currently limited to owner -occupied single family residential units and
includes the following requirements:
1. A description of the work performed.
2. A detail invoice from the contractor or other evidence of the project costs
incurred.
3. Proof of payment of the project costs.
4. A final inspection and approval by the Department of Inspection Services.
5. Proof of ownership of the property.
Des Plaines originated the program in June 1990 but made it retroactive to January 1, 1989.
In 1991 they extended the retroactive date to January 1, 1988. As of May 1991, Des Plaines
has had a total of 150 applicants and has approved rebates of approximately $99,000. Their
program has been fairly easy to administer and has been well received by the residents.
Additionally, their program has turned up a number of jobs where permits had not been
obtained and some instances where the work was not acceptable. They only pay for work
that meets code requirements and is permanent in nature.
John Fulton Dixon
Page 2
Flood Prevention Rebate Program
Because the Des Plaines program has been effective we have patterned a program for
Mount Prospect after the Des Plaines program. The attached program explanation and
application are the documents that we would use for a Mount Prospect Program.
The typical projects included in the program explanation are not all-inclusive because there
can be other work that would accomplish the purpose of flood mitigation/prevention under
certain circumstances. Some examples are foundation waterproofing, additional foundation
or floor tiles, and possible property drainage measures. The Director of Inspection Services
would determine if the project fulfilled the guidelines of the program. The Comptroller of
Des Plaines said about 95% of their rebates have been for overhead plumbing and backflow
valves, but there were some other types of projects which they have approved for specific
properties. It should be emphasized that the rebate does not apply to new construction and
the improvement must be permanent in nature.
The above guidelines cover rebates to single-family residential properties only. Our
discussions at the Staff level determined that other properties not covered by the single-
family program should be looked at on a case-by-case basis. We are not sure of the
potential participation level or the range of project costs that may be incurred for non-
residential projects. As a result, it is our recommendation to stay with a maximum rebate
of 20% of incurred costs but to leave the project maximum open until we have more
information.
The Public Works Department, Planning and Zoning, and Inspection Services will inform
property owners about the incentive where conditions may be appropriate. Village Board
approval will be required before rebate commitments are made for these projects.
I believe the Residential Rebate Program as proposed is an effective way to encourage
private initiative and will help to resolve the flooding problems in the Village.
DCJ/sm
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
Flood Prevention Rebate Program
Village msIdntial property owners may be eligible for arebate of up to a maximum of$1000
based upon 20% of the actual cost of verifiable flood mitigation/prevention projects of a
permanent nature. The program is limited to improvement projects of a permanent nature to
owner -occupied single family dwelling units within the Village. The rebate applies to any eligible
projects completed after December 31, 1990.
Typical projects which will qualify for the rebate include:
1. Overhead sewer installation.
2. Repair orimprovements toexisting overhead sewers.
3. Backflow valves and standpipes.
4. Any other flood mitigation/prevention project of a permanent nature
approved bythe Director ofInspection Services.
Toqualify for arebate the following information must be supplied with the attached :
1. Adescription ofthe work performed.
2' A detail invoice from the contractor or other evidence of the project costs incurred.
8. Proof of payment ofthe project costs.
4. Afinal inspection and approval bythe Department ofInspection Services.
5. Proof ofownership ofproperty.
The above information must be provided along with a completed application to the Department
of Inspection Services, Village of Mount Prospect, 100 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect,
Illinois. For more information please call 3924]OOO. ext. 236.
Application for Flood Prevention Rebate Program
1/We hereby make application for a rebate for the flood mitigation/prevention work performed
at the following address in Mount Prospect:
Name:
Address:
Telephone:
The following information must be supplied with this application:
1. A description of the work performed.
2. A detail invoice from the contractor or other evidence of the project costs
incurred.
3. Cancelled check or other proof of payment of the project costs.
4. Village permit number and date of final inspection.
5. Copy of most recent real estate tax bill or other proof of ownership of the
property.
Upon approval by the Village, a rebate of 20% of the total applicable project costs and permit
fees up to a maximum of $1,000 will be paid to the property owner. Please allow four weeks for
processing of payment.
I/We hereby attest that the attached documents are true and correct copies of original
documents of the actual project costs incurred, and that I/We are the owner -occupants of the
above property.
Date Property Owner
For Village Use Only
Approved:
Inspection Services
Finance Department
Date:
Village of INA'o'unt Prospect
Mount Prospect, Illinois
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: VILLAGE MANAGER JOHN FULTON DIXON
FROM: ASSISTANT VILLAGE MANAGER
DATE: MAY 10, 1991
SUBJECT: FIRE/POLICE STATION
The Village has reached the point at which a decision must be made on the exact
location of temporary quarters to ensure that construction can begin as early as possible
this fall. Knowing the exact location is critical because the phone and communication
systems must be relocated.
The Departments will use the old Public Works Building as much as possible. However,
additional office space and locker room space is needed. The estimate for construction
of the new building is 20 months. Considering the time needed for moving and
demolition, temporary quarters will be necessary for approximately two years.
Staff has explored a number of alternatives. Conversion of garage area in the old Public
Works Building for office space and locker rooms would cost more than other options.
The Village requested proposals from a number of local property owners for rental of
office space. The most reasonable proposal was $10 per square foot, which would be
about $104,000 for two years. Some walls would also have to be constructed in this
space to provide separation from non -municipal operations. This figure does not include
locker facilities which could run about $15,000. Since the budget for temporary facilities
is $150,000, this option does not appear to be cost-effective.
The Village would need to use 11 trailers for office space and locker rooms. Estimated
rental based on proposals received would be $100,000 for two years plus site preparation
of approximately $15,000. The cost for rental of trailers is less than office space but,
again, this option does not appear to be cost-effective.
Another option is to purchase the trailers with an agreement that would require the
seller to buy back the trailers at the end of two years at an agreed upon percentage of
the original purchase price. Fifty per cent is realistic but, of course, we could hope for
more. The Village would have to spend approximately $146,000 up front for this
scenario. This amount includes trailers plus other non -reimbursable items such as
delivery and site preparation. After the trailers are repurchased, the actual out-of-pocket
cost would be about $83,000. This appears to be the most cost-effective option.
As I said, a decision must be made at this time so we may proceed with the phone and
communication systems. I recommend going with the trailer option (purchase/buy-back
agreement). The bid should also include a rental option.
If trailers are used, nine trailers would be placed at the old Public Works Building. Five
would be on the asphalt pad on the south side of the Building and four would be on the
grass to the north. Two trailers would be on the grass to the east of the Fire Station
at Golf and Busse.
If the trailer option is chosen, we could begin the bid process at once. Bids would be
opened on June 24. The contract could be awarded on July 2 with delivery of trailers
on August 12.
JOHN P. BURG
JPB/rcw
Village of N,-junt Prospect
Mount Prospect, Illinois
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO:
VILLAGE MANAGER JOHN FULTON DIXON
FROM:
ASSISTANT VILLAGE MANAGER
DATE:
MAY 3, 1991
SUBJECT:
FIRE/POLICE STATION SCHEDULE
Attached is a copy of the tgwntativ schedule for the Fire/Police Station. It is important
to begin the project as early as possible this fall so that construction can continue
throughout the winter. I recommend that the Departments be moved to temporary
facilities during August. This will allow for demolition of the existing facility in
September and excavation for the new building could begin in October.
There is a risk attached to demolishing the current facility before construction bids have
been received. However, according to Donohue, recent bids have been coming in very
favorably. Unless the economy changes significantly, this trend should continue. There
is also a risk to delaying demolition. Since demolition takes about one month, cold
weather could certainly hinder construction. The project could possibly be delayed until
the weather moderates in February. Again, I recommend the demolition of the old
facility in September.
In discussions with demolitions contractors on Tuesday, Herb Weeks learned these
contractors would be willing to bid now for September demolition. Thus, the demolition
bid process has begun and the bids will be presented to the Village Board in July for
consideration.
JOHN P. BURG
JPB/rcw
c: Mayor Gerald L. Farley
Board of Trustees
Fire Chief Edward Cavello
Police Chief Ronald Pavlock
Public Works Director Herbert Weeks
Planning and Zoning Director David Clements
FIRE/POLICE STATION SCHEDULE
April 10, 1991
Alarms - National Guardian was
advised to begin notifying customers
of the change in location - 90 day's
notice required.
April 15, 1991
Repairs at old Public Works
Building can begin immediately.
Continue search for additional
parking at nearby properties.
Continue exploring other space
options such as office rental or
construction of additional office
space in the old Public Works
building.
April 17, 1991
Design/Development begins.
May 06, 1991
Trailers - Begin bid process. Follow
the same schedule if office space
will be rented or additional office
space will be constructed at the old
Public Works building.
May 24, 1991
Deadline for materials to be
submitted to the ZBA for
Variations.
June 03, 1991 Phones - Begin process.
Communications Equipment - Begin
process.
Moving - Begin bid process.
June 12, 1991 Complete Design/Development.
Begin preparing Contract
documents.
June 18, 1991 Award Contract for trailers, office
space rental or construction of
additional office space.
June 27, 1991
ZBA Variations.
July 02, 1991
Village Board - Variations.
July 08, 1991
Demolition - Begin bid process.
Alarms - Notification complete.
Alarms may be moved at any time.
August 21, 1991
Specify completion date (August 19).
July 15, 1991
Begin site preparation for trailers.
July 16, 1991
First reading - Variations
August 06, 1991
Second reading - Variations.
August 12, 1991
Trailers delivered.
October 04, 1991
Moving - Begin using Village
October 08, 1991
personnel. Take possession of office
space or complete construction of
office space if these alternatives are
chosen.
August 19, 1991
Moving by contractor. Alarm
installation completed. Phone
installation completed.
Communications equipment
installation completed.
August 21, 1991
Construction Contract documents
completed. Begin bid process.
August 26, 1991
Moving completed.
September 03, 1991
Demolition - Award contract.
September 04, 1991
Demolition begins.
October 04, 1991
Demolition complete.
October 08, 1991
Special Board meeting to award
construction Contract.
October 09, 1991 Construction to begin as soon as
possible.
May, 1993 Occupancy (construction
approximately 20 months.
L O CICER R OOMS A NIS IN VEST'IGA TIONS
SCALE V = APPROX T2'1 ALDI'SPARK/NGLOT
7 LOCKERS 14 LOCKERS 7 LOCKERS
BA'ADULT
,HENS tOCit R ROOM! INTER- lNtjESTIGATIONS YOUTH UNIT r;
MEW
7 LOCKER BATH BATH 10 LOCKER 4 LOCKERS
RAl)!O T' BATH 10 LOCKERS 4 LOCKERS FLES 8A COPYAREA
ROOM/ MENS LOLXt . r ROOM & CMDR &SGT
ARMORY 20 LOGKER� !_� SUPPLIES F---1
RECEPTION r�--
7 LOCKERS -� —' 4 LOCKERS
1,6ATH BATH
WOMENSLOCA-ER ROOM
( 7�LOCKERS EQUIPMENT
1
WOMENS LOCKER ROOM
1 36'X 1O' UNIT
INTEWOR 32'X 10' _ 320 SQ FT
2 TOILETS/NC' SHOWERS
20 LOCKERS
MENS LOCAERROOM
2-60"X 12' UNITS
INTERIOR 56'X 12'X2= 1344 SQ FT
4 TOILETS/NO SHOWER
83 LOCKERS
OLD PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING
lNtIESTlGATIONS
2-64'X 12' UNITS
INTERIOR 60'X 12' = 720 SO FT
720 SQ. FT. X 2 = 1,440 SQ. FT
te'
re•
Ir
POLICE ADMINISTRA TION & CRIME PREVENTION,_
SCALE 1" = APPROX T
cOlvF-
Agw%r.c
BABY I DIC OPS SECRETARY
GENERAL RECEPTION
4-60' X 12' UNtTS
672 SQ. FT. X 4 = 2,688 SO. FT
15'6'X 11'9'=
STORAGE
CRIME
PREVENTION IINI;r
"'Xff's'=
BA 77-1
COMPLUFRAREA
TECHNICAL
SERGEANT
WORKIW PROGRESS
BATH
COPYAREA
lo/c
ADMIN
DIC ADMIN SECRETARY
BATH
CYID:'S SECRETARY
DIC
OPS
CHIE rS RECEPTION
cOlvF-
Agw%r.c
BABY I DIC OPS SECRETARY
GENERAL RECEPTION
4-60' X 12' UNtTS
672 SQ. FT. X 4 = 2,688 SO. FT
15'6'X 11'9'=
STORAGE
CRIME
PREVENTION IINI;r