-Topics-
- Work Session
-Work Session-
Attendance
Present: Mayor Slack, Council President Briggs, Councilors Barrientos, Blosser, Fitzgerald, Jantz, Schilling, Shein, and Spivey.
Absent: Councilor Holsapple
Police Station options
The Council spent the entire evening in a work session discussing how to move forward in their goal of a Police building in Dallas. Alternative options were reviewed and various funding methods were explained. Mackenzie Inc. worked with the city on the original project and presented information on alternative options and cost estimates.
Below you will find a brief summary on the alternatives presented, followed by a recap of the discussion related to that topic. You can watch the entire discussion on the City’s YouTube page.
2 story Police station
This document shows the original detailed cost breakdown from Mackenzie that was used in determining the cost of the 2 story Police station.
- Estimate low = $11,063,355
- Estimate high = $12,204,812
Link: pg. 4-18
Discussion on 2 story option
Councilor Shein asked what creates the difference between the low and high estimates. Representatives from Mackenzie explained that the contingency budget % is increased in the higher estimate.
Councilor Barrientos wondered if contingencies could be a source of savings if not used in the final construction. Mackenzie explained while there might be some small savings, contingencies are not extra funds. They are instead money for things not figured out yet. As construction progresses and final details are secured, the contingencies get moved into the known budget.
Council President Briggs inquired about using a Design-Bid-Build method verse using the Construction Manager/General Contractor (CMGC) method. Would there be any savings between the 2 options?
Build your understanding: Design-Bid-Build follows a process to hire a designer and then bid out the work to contractors. CMGC has a contractor involved earlier in the process helping with the design.
Mackenzie doesn’t see much difference between the 2 in savings. Using CMGC tends to help with scheduling and lead times for supplies since the contractor is more involved in the beginning.
3rd party cost estimate for 2 story Police station
This is a 3rd party estimate for the originally proposed 2 story Police building. The quote is provided by Todd Constructions Inc. The staff report notes it is, “within the estimate originally provided by Mackenzie.”
- Estimate = $12,226,434
Link: pg. 19-23
Discussion on 3rd party estimate
Councilor Shein noted it was reassuring the 2 quotes are within the same ballpark.
Single-story building option analysis
This chart compares building costs of 4 single story buildings to the originally proposed 2 story Dallas Police building. It also lists other data points like total population served and number of staff for each building.
Quick glance:
- Molalla Police
- 1 story
- 19,530 sq ft
- $885 cost per sq ft
- St. Helens Public Safety
- 1 story
- 14,031 sq ft
- $912 cost per sq ft
- Umatilla Police
- 1 story
- 15,095 sq ft
- $1,078 cost per sq ft
- Kalama Police
- 1 story
- 4,044 sq ft
- $725 cost per sq ft
- Dallas Police
- 2 story
- 16,736 sq ft
- $975 cost per sq ft
Link: pg. 25
Discussion on single story option
Mackenzie explained the main areas of cost savings in a single story building comes from having no elevator or stairs. While these might be a premium in price, when it comes to the cost per square foot, there is not much savings.
Council President Briggs asked for a re-confirmation that the numbers show there is not much difference in savings for a single story building compared to a 2 story. Mackenzie confirmed.
Councilor Schilling asked why the “building construction cost” is so much lower than the single story buildings. Mackenzie shared 3 reasons: those buildings had more surface costs, the rural locations made costs higher, and 1 location had a large elevation change on the property. Schilling said that makes perfect sense for the building construction cost.
Councilor Fitzgerald wondered why the “site construction cost” was double over the single story buildings. Costs are higher for Dallas because of the demolition of the Itemizer-Observer (I-O) building and its proximity to other buildings.
Itemizer-Observer remodel analysis
This shows an option for remodeling the existing I-O building. This rough estimate and site plan is provided by Mackenzie.
- Estimate low = $5,290,740
- Estimate high = $7,110,675
Link: pg. 24
Discussion on Itemizer-Observer remodel
Councilor Shein wondered what would be “lost” if the Council moved forward with this option. While the numbers are an early estimation, Mackenzie did say if this path was chosen a lot of conversations would be needed due to the small size of the I-O building.
Let’s do some math: The 2 story Police building gives a total of 16,736 sq ft. In comparison, the I-O remodel gives a total of 9,000+ sq ft. That is located across 3 different buildings: 7,500 sq ft in I-O building, 1,500 sq ft in the Annex building, and an unknown amount of space taken inside City Hall (note City Hall is 5,200 sq ft).
Answer: This means up to 7,736 sq ft would need to be cut from the 2 story building plan to fit in a remodeled I-O building.
Due to the age of the I-O building, there are many known and likely unknown deficiencies in the building. According to Mackenzie, it will need a lot of work to bring it up to code and safety building standards.
Why do public safety buildings cost more? Mackenzie explained in part by comparing the needs of a commercial and public safety building in an earthquake. A commercial building’s code makes sure the building can stand just long enough to evacuate people out. A public safety building is built to not only remain standing but to also be functional after the earthquake. This provides essential emergency services when they are needed the most. That is why costs are higher for public safety buildings.
Councilor Fitzgerald asked if there are grants that can help pay for the remodel. Mackenzie said there not many grants for these buildings. Usually they are only for 1-2 million and have lots of rules.
Mayor Slack wanted to know the timeline for a remodel. Due to the extensive remodel needs it would likely take as long as constructing a new building.
Councilor Jantz wondered if City Hall would need any upgrades since it would be used in the remodel scenario. Because the extent of City Hall use is still unknown it’s hard to determine if parts of the building would need remodeling. Mackenzie said because the 2 buildings (City Hall and Annex) connect there would at least be some work done at the connection point.
Councilor Schilling shared that the safety of Police is important and it seemed like the remodel option would leave them at risk.
As a note of caution, Mackenzie recalled that the remodel was already working with a smaller space and less efficient footprint. The Council was advised against making budget cuts or savings on this option.
Building Options wrap up
Mackenzie asked the Council if there was a specific number they are looking to achieve for overall cost. Noting the desire to save on the project, the 2 story plan can be value engineered (a review that looks for ways to save money without compromising the overall project).
Councilor Barrientos mentioned 10 million. Council President Briggs and Councilor Shein agreed with 10 million and Shein added it’s a psychological number for people. Councilor Spivey recalled hearing people wanting single digit millions (9 or less).
Mayor Slack believes the amount of the tax increase is what matters overall, not the number of the budget. Also, the Mayor added that time will only increase costs. It was noted the estimate had a 4-7% increase built in for inflation due to current political climate and tariffs.
Councilor Fitzgerald asked how many Police officers the 2 story building will be able to hold. Currently there are 23 sworn officers. The 2 story building was designed for a 50 year growth plan, maxing out at 43 officers.
Mayor Slack warned that making cuts and removing things from the plans now will only cost more to add back in the future. It would also require going back to the voters to ask for more money.
The Mayor also highlighted a major concern of voters was the expense to build on the I-O site but the information showed that is not the case. Councilor Schilling added that moving locations to maybe save a couple hundred thousand dollars doesn’t seem like a good overall decision.
Councilor Fitzgerald inquired about using a newer building to remodel instead of the I-O building. Mackenzie said any building, even if new, would require remodeling due to public safety building standards.
Council President Briggs asked how big the Senior Center is. It was noted to be just over 5,000 sq ft but not built to the needed standards. It would need remodeling. Councilor Shein inquired about the size of the 791 Main St property. The property is about 12,000 sq ft.
City Manager Latta stated that ultimately the voters will have to decide. Recently, the Chemeketa bond failed their 1st vote. However, they put the same exact measure back on the ballot a 2nd time and with more education, it passed. Councilor Shein added there were 2 other tax measures on the ballot with the Police building which might have played a role in voters saying no.
Councilor Barrientos stated that going forward it will be important to talk about how a Police building is an investment in the community, and explain the returns that investment will bring to the city.
Financial analysis for various funding options
Below you will find a brief summary on the different options for funding a Police building. This information was presented by Cecilia Ward, the city’s Finance Director. You can watch the entire discussion on the City’s YouTube page.
- 5-year local option levy
- Funding for the Aquatic Center, Library, and staffing for the Senior Center would be put on a 5 year levy
- That levy would free up revenue in the General Fund to pay for public safety staff (which is currently funded through the public safety fee)
- The public safety fee would then be renamed to the public safety building fee and would pay for the construction
- Remember – An operating levy has to be renewed by the voters. So the Aquatic Center, Library, and Senior Center staff levy would need to be approved by the voters at least every 5 years
- This would pay for construction of a Police building
- It would be be sent to the voters for approval
- This would likely be for a rate of $1.13 per $1,000 assessed value of your home
- Link: pg. 26
- 30 year revenue bond with a new public safety fee
- This proposal would create a new public safety building fee for a 30 year bond
- This would pay for construction of a Police building
- It would be be sent to the voters for approval
- This fee would likely be $12.50 per month
- Link: pg. 27
- This proposal would create a new public safety building fee for a 30 year bond
- 20 year revenue bond with a new public safety fee
- This proposal (similar to the 30 year bond) would create a new public safety building fee but for only a 20 year bond
- This would pay for construction of a Police building
- It would be be sent to the voters for approval
- This fee would likely be $12.50 per month
- This proposal was created before the I-O remodel estimate was received
- Due to that estimate being lower, this fee could be reduced
- Link: pg. 28
- This proposal (similar to the 30 year bond) would create a new public safety building fee but for only a 20 year bond
- 30 year general obligation bond
- This shows a proposal for a 30 year bond, similar to the one proposed on the May 2025 ballot
- This would pay for construction of a Police building
- It would be be sent to the voters for approval
- This would likely be for a rate of .52 cent per $1,000 assessed value of your home
- Link: pg. 29
- This shows a proposal for a 30 year bond, similar to the one proposed on the May 2025 ballot
Discussion on funding options
Councilor Spivey asked how many staff the current public safety fee pays for. City Manager Latta explained the fee covers personal service costs, not any specific wage or position.
Councilors Schilling, Spivey, and Council President Briggs had a quick discussion about the 5 year local levy. They concluded that if the voters didn’t approve the levy every 5 years, the Library, Aquatic Center, and Senior Center would have to close.
Councilor Schilling stated support for the 5 year levy option. Noted 3 key things a city needs to provide as water, police, and fire. The 5 year levy option would allow for the city to provide the 3 keys and then let the citizens vote for the additional services of the Library, Aquatic Center, and Senior Center.
Schilling also expressed wanting the city to be proactive. Constructing a building to serve for the next 50 years is saving money in the long run. Schilling warned about the effects of waiting to build. Recalled how Dallas previously tried to build a Police & Fire building (in 2003 or 2004). Those 2 building combined were 10 million, compared to the cost of 17 million for only a Police building today.
Council President Briggs wanted to check if 10 years of the 5 year levy would pay for the building. Due to interest, the City Manager said it would be closer to 20 years for the 5 year levy option. It would save 10 years compared to the 30 year bond option.
The City Manager spoke about the public safety building fee option. Noting the fee is not tied to someone’s property, but rather paid by all utility users. There are more utility users (like someone living in an apartment) than there are property owners. This fee would lower the overall burden because more people are paying it.
The building fee would likely be $12.50. That would raise 14 million in 20 years (the low estimate for the 2 story building). The $12.50 fee could have a phased step increase if the higher estimate of 17 million were asked for.
Councilor Jantz asked if this fee would be reviewed every year, and if there are any current city fees that could be lowered to offset the potential building fee. The City Manager said the city is always evaluating fees. The water fee has increased a lot over the last 3 years in order to save towards the dam project, but the size of increase will drop this year.
Councilor Schilling wondered if the city can put 2 options on the ballot. Give the voters a choice, and if both pass the Council can choose which to accept. The City Manager cautioned against this as it can cause more confusion for voters.
Councilor Fitzgerald commented that the 30 year bond and the building fee are about the same monthly cost (for the average home).
next steps
Council President Briggs asked if Mackenzie thought it was possible to value engineer 10% off the numbers for the 2 story building. They nodded their heads in agreement.
The City Manager advised May 2026 would be the earliest election date, due to the paperwork deadline in a week for the Nov 2025 election. The May 2026 deadline is in early spring 2026.
Councilors Blosser, Shein, and Council President Briggs agreed the I-O building remodel is a no-go.
The Mayor asked if the Council wanted the same 2 story building as before but value engineered.
Councilor Schilling would prefer to get more solid numbers in order to make a decision. Believes the public wants the Council to be more involved in the process.
Councilor Shein stated being in favor of value engineering the 2 story building option and looking at the building fee option for funding.
Latta acknowledged that voters wanted the Council to research and consider other options, and in this works session the Council has done that.
What happen? A lot of discussion, but nothing official happened. Here is the next step: In an upcoming meeting, the Council will get a budget amendment to vote on. That amendment will be to pay for a company to value engineer the 2 story Police building project. The value engineering should make some adjustments on the proposal to trim the overall budget.
-More Information-
- Work Session full agenda
- Work Session YouTube video archive
