Police Department & Recycling

[Don Haddix]

This thread is written in conjunction with the Police Department thread. Please read both.

We will lose the current main recycling center in the near future. But recycling is an expected amenity and one that aids us all by keeping materials out of landfills, from becoming litter and actually brings in money by recycling and salvaging electronic components, in example.

It will cost at least $5 mil to buy the old WASA site and build a recycling center on it. That is the proposal offered by Staff. Initial cost is at least $2 mil.

As for the PD Staff recommends repairing it. But the cost will be at least $1.5 mil in new repairs on top of old repairs. And with no guarantee overall building and site will ever be viable.

So, we are looking at a minimum of $7 mil for the two projects.

The Police Station, to me, is a waste of money trying to make it usable again. I believe it is a bad site even without a building on it.

The efforts at Photocircuits to fulfill multiple needs failed due to environmental issues. If it had succeeded we could have saved millions by getting a site for $1 Mil and combining many purposes and departments into it.

With that said Doug Sturbaum and I have worked on finding the most effective solution at the lowest price. Here it is:
1. Buy the site the PD currently resides in. We gain 7,000 sq' over the old PD and it is in a better location. It is also a proven building that is not that old.
2. Add recycling bins, etc., behind the old PD building and convert the PD into a warehouse etc. center.

This eliminates the need to buy the old WASA site and construct the recycling center on it, a future revisiting of the building to get people out and do a rebuild, being unable to sell the PD site to someone else and saves millions of tax payer dollars while giving a better PD and an enhanced recycling center with a better location for both.

We can also move Code Enforcement, at a minimum, into the building and take pressure off of the crowded City Hall.

These are tough time economically and we would rather spend nothing. But that is not an option here and it the best solution we can devise at this time.

[Don Haddix]

Some added notes here are that in further examination, even if we have to buy the old WASA site, the following gains are foreseen for the combined effort:
$2,000,000.00 savings.
Moving the Recycling Center gains a location that is more convenient and encourages usage.
Expanded Recycling Center.
Adding disposal for hazardous materials, such as old paint, batteries, cleaners and such along with used oil, in example, are services that benefit PTC.
Salvaging and selling still usable construction materials and components instead of putting them land fills benefits PTC.
A furniture repair workshop is a benefit to citizens and keeps furniture that would otherwise end up in a landfill out.
No new road cut and paved areas for the Recycling Center. Use the existing roads even to the WASA site to save money and preserve trees and green space that would otherwise be cut or removed.
Using the Police Station as the furniture workshop and salvage center saves the costs of demolition and building new elsewhere.
Not breaking the bond on the Police Station saves $200,000.00.
Use unused land areas for future projects such as equipment storage or expanded training for the police or fire departments.
Relocates the Police Station to a more logistical location for visibility access to and by PTC.
Increases size of Police Station and take pressure off of City Hall by transferring at least Code Enforcement into it.
Better police moral by not reintroducing officers to a facility they do not wish to occupy.
Remove risk of lawsuit over a health issues.
Allows the Police Station to be configured to a more practical and usable layout than the old Station.
Removes the issue of facing this issue again in three or so years at even greater costs than now.
Increased citizen moral by knowing this issue has finally ended after 7 years.Will it cost money? Yes. There is no way around it.

Is the Recycling Center a real issue or an option? A real issue because it has to move due to realigning Rockaway Road.

Can we eliminate the Recycling Center without consequences to and from PTC? No.

So, we can face the issues separately at full cost on both now, plus more in the future, or we combine and end them now, at lower overall costs.

As for why builders and such were not confronted in the past and so on, I cannot answer that because I have only been on Council since January 1st. So, I am aware of what is currently happening and being pursued by various members of the Council.

Bottom line for me is the site is bad, the only way to have a successfully occupied Station there would be to rebuild to a building with a fully power ventilated crawlspace and what has been proposed in these thread comments are the most economical solutions available.

Errors of the past have cost PTC a lot of money. We have to take a path of smarter thinking in the future where it is recognized the cheapest at the moment is not the best value in the long run every time.

[Don Haddix]

Numbers and presentations have been bouncing all over the place.

Using Staff number on March 6 I demonstrated a $2-2.5 million savings by converting the PD to Recycling and buying Commerce. Now Staff numbers show a $2.5 million advantage for repairing. About a $5 million flip in numbers over the same issues.

What I think has been demonstrated is that there are no absolute, pegged down numbers. There are many questions, ifs, ands and maybes over what the bottom line is.

So, where does that leave us? With these certain facts:
1. A vote needs to be taken, a decision made.
2. In 2001, 2004 and 2007 experts said this is good when done. But it didn't turn out that way.
3. Other experts say it will never be good.
4. The Recycling Center must be moved. Not a choice.
5. If this does not fix it in the next Council we will be looking at two existing loans being paid and having to debate yet another at an even higher cost.
6. If it fixes it, fine and good.
7. If we move and convert, the debate is gone.

So, looking at the realities, what is the right decision?

For me, I do not think the site is good, so nothing will fix it. Better to bite the bullet, now, and get out from under.

Yes, it will be at a cost. But so will the repair and Recycling relocation.

Moving and converting ends it. Does repair and relocation?

Tough choice but one that has to be made.

[Don Haddix]

The Police Station problem is an issue of much concern, emotion, debate and frustration. Adding the economic realities of the Peachtree City budget shortfalls and pressures on the citizens makes the issues even worse.

But Council still has to come to some decision on how to proceed. Doing nothing is not an option. The decision must be a long term fix, not one that simply buys time to postpone larger and additional costs to a future date. It must begin with the question of can the Police Station be fixed permanently or not?

With that in mind a historical review is in order.

When the initial proposal was made to buy the current site many citizens spoke strongly against the choice. They knew the site was an old dump site. City Hall claimed that where the building was to be built was not such a site, but an island bordered by the actual dump location. But reality is debris is under the building, whether you want to call it landfill or dump and hazardous or non-hazardous. Debris of many types was found under or by the building and reported by a number of people.
April 2001 - The Certificate of Occupancy was issued.
Soon after moisture appeared in the building.
After that the floor began blistering and de-laminating.
June 2004 - An engineering firm determined the floor
blistering and de-laminating was due to 'excessive' moisture in the ground. That is ground water. It is to be noted in June of 2004 we were in drought with a 9.43" deficit in the Atlanta area but the ground around the Police Station was noted as being wet.

Early 2005 - Work was completed on removing the floor coverings, sealing the floor and recovering the floor.
August 2005 - Another engineering firm performed moisture transmission testing due to continued floor blistering. They found moisture levels were high and significantly greater than specified limits. Moisture was still reaching the floor from the ground below.
October 2005 - The City Manager sent a memo to the Police Department to calm concerns that while the structure was built on an old dump site the materials in the dump were not hazardous.
March 2006 - A third engineering firm determined the building problems included deeper sub-surface moisture and wall construction problems.
December 2007 - I inspected the building and site. It was easy to see site grading and construction defects. It was also very observable that after months of drought land surrounding and near the Police Station was very wet when it should have been extremely dry, as was the reality elsewhere. Such wet conditions were also observable on an adjoining property in spot locations.
October 2007-2008 - A fourth engineering firm was hired to investigate "moisture intrusion through the wall and roof systems." Contrary to some claims they were not hired to examine the floor and only officially reported findings regarding the roof and wall structures. Every Council Member has a bound engineering report.
January 2008 - Liquid water was found in a 6' monitoring well within the building after some rain.
Repairs authorized in late 2007, in a 3-2 Council vote, included scraping the floor, sealing it and reflooring. Of this vote 2-1 remain on the Council. This will be the second scraping and sealing and the third floor covering in a 7 year period.
Additional repairs under consideration include the exterior wall removal and replacement. At a Council Meeting pro-repair advocates on Council cited the current engineering firm's findings as showing no ground water issues to refute my statements about ground water. I directly asked the firm about the wet grounds I saw during a drought and the engineer shrugged, he could not explain it.
I fully agree the wall construction is bad and can be fixed. But I totally disagree, as do the three engineering firms not contracted to only look at the walls and roof, that there are no ground water issues causing blistering and de-laminating of the flooring and other moisture related problems.

This is not a comfortable decision to make and any decision has ramifications. But make a decision we must and I personally cannot find justification to proceed with repairs to the building as a Police Headquarters that may appear cheaper in the short term but will prove far more expensive in the long term.

[flip230]

I support the option of not throwing more money at his problem. Let's find a new suitable location and cut our loses.

However, I'm not convinced the temporary location is the right location. Parking is an issue currently and will only get worse in time...short time.

What about the many vacant buildings that currently exist on Dividend Road? I have seen several that would afford ample parking, central location and ample room for growth and expansion.

Again, I think you are on the right track, lets cut the loses but lets find a better site than the temporary location.

[Don Haddix]

I support the option of not throwing more money at his problem. Let's find a new suitable location and cut our loses.

However, I'm not convinced the temporary location is the right location. Parking is an issue currently and will only get worse in time...short time.

What about the many vacant buildings that currently exist on Dividend Road? I have seen several that would afford ample parking, central location and ample room for growth and expansion.

Again, I think you are on the right track, lets cut the loses but lets find a better site than the temporary location.
On the current location it has already been noted we need the whole building, so the tenants leases would have to be bought out to get all the parking.

Doug Sturbaum and I have hunted out everywhere. I have done research and contacts on available or potentially available buildings and land. Other buildings are either too small, way to big or not for sale. It is either buy the current or buy pristine land and build from scratch, which would cost about $2 million more than renovating, at this time.

But for me the option is either the current location or pristine land. But always open to better alternatives until we lock something in somewhere, so if anyone knows of something better coming open please tell me immediately.

[CitizenAl]

I agree that not enough research has been done to build confidence in the current site.

I like the idea of buying land and building what we need but buy or build is a decision of complexity that is beyond my knowledge.

Perhaps we can raise the fees on commercial (not residential) builders enough to cover the costs!

[Don Haddix]

I agree that not enough research has been done to build confidence in the current site.

I like the idea of buying land and building what we need but buy or build is a decision of complexity that is beyond my knowledge.

Perhaps we can raise the fees on commercial (not residential) builders enough to cover the costs!
We have proposals in work now to increase fees just to cover the PTC costs of permits and such. They are not too happy with them already.

[CitizenAl]

I assume you mean the builders - I can certainly understand that, however, their satisfaction should not drive the decision process.

[Don Haddix]

I assume you mean the builders - I can certainly understand that, however, their satisfaction should not drive the decision process.
Agree and will not. at least for some of us.

[Don Haddix]

The Police Station vote has again been moved. This time to May 1.

We continue to pay additional rent at the rate of about $13,000 per month and non-performance penalties due to the last Council having approved the initial over $500,000 last year while there were many loose ends not yet resolved, with a portion of that issue now being a proposal for over $700,000 more.

The vote to repair, then, was 3-2 to repair and currently the vote is setting at 2-2, by all appearances, with the unknown vote having voted against repair, last year, but maybe voting for repair, this year.

[Don Haddix]

The PD saga goes on.

I recently received a call from a realtor contact who alerted me to a new piece of property going on the market and that they were going to view it that day. So I toured the facility as well, along with two company officials. I was extremely impressed with the property location, size, 6-7 acres, the building and everything about it. I had thought it was hype when the initial call said the property was built greater than the norms of construction, but the viewing proved that statement correct.

It is about 16,000 sq' with interior space that allows expansion to at least 30,000 sq'. So there is room for growth. No exterior landscaping is required, it is already very well done. No ground water issues. The land layout allows for an even better training field because it can include a wooded area, which is not present on the old field. No grading or tree cutting required. The concrete floors in at least over half building range from 1-1.5' thick. Two road entrances accommodate one for citizens and one for police only. One ramp and door allow for secure ingress and egress from the building in required situations. And so forth.

It does need roof work, as normal maintenance on a 12 year old building. Cost range is $60-100,000 depending on patching or complete replacement. The parking lot, in the rear, will probably have to be expanded. Plus interior wall and such additions to create proper office space and so forth.

A second tour included City Hall Staff, Police Staff, three Council Members and a company representative.

The only negative comment was that it would cost up to $1.5 million to modify to suit police needs, which was in range of what I had estimated and am willing to pay, since the alternative is to put them back in a building I firmly believe will fail again as office space use.

Simple reality is we have 4 choices at this moment and one will be reality:
Repair and reoccupy the old site. This is no choice at all to me.
Buy the currently occupied site, which will not fail but is no where near as good a choice as the new found site. But still this is my number two choice.
Acquire the new found site and relocate there. This is my number one choice.
Buy a pristine site and build totally from scratch. While this may is the ideal choice the cost is so prohibitive it isn't practical during these economic times and the foreseeable future.Currently, I a waiting for a final price to be given after having discussions with them on their and our economic realties plus our political realities. Therefore I reserver comment on the site location as of this time but will give a follow up once a bottom line is reached.

But I am very hopeful as of this time that a number will come in that sway the final vote to 3-2 for acquiring this offering.

[Don Haddix]

Sadly, the owners have decided the property is very valuable and they want full or near full value, something that is not practical.

So, unless they change their minds very quickly we are down to repair or buying the current location, since building pristine is very costly and something three members of Council have zero will to even consider.

I do believe a vote will occur tonight. My position remains the same since every engineering report cites ground water issues along.

Yes, the walls are bad and can be fixed. But I read nothing in the reports that negate ground water concerns.

[Don Haddix]

Vote is done. Repair on a 3-2 vote.
For repair:
Harold Logsdon
Steve Boone
Cyndi Plunkett

Against:
Doug Sturbaum
Don Haddix

We had a shot, but no way guaranteed, at 2-3 but loosing that other site cost us. There was no willingness to wait to see if anything would changed.

Now we wait to see.

[Don Haddix]

The vote has been taken and it is time for me to move on, having voted against it, until something changes.

But, for the sake of those asking I have attached some old engineering reports about ground water.

I also note the most recent engineering report was about defects in the exterior walls and is not disputed by anyone on Council. The walls were truly bad. The report did not touch upon ground water or the floor in any manner.

As to the question of dehumidifiers, yes, they were heavily run and didn't help.

Just info for your information, not trying to continue this debate in any manner.