Are We Getting The Bang For Our Buck In A New Police Station?

Thursday, May 21, 2009 03:45 AM

It would not surprise me if the consultant working on behalf of the City to build the new police station comes back with a figure that is, say, between $40 and $42 million dollars and the City will be able to say, look see we have been able to shave off some money from the cost of the structure and now we should build it.

No one of course will allude to the fact that it will see your taxes rise by 6 ½% and in a recent interview Mayor Rogers tried to use the,”it will cost you only a few bucks a month” line. A few bucks Mr Mayor ads up to quite a few bucks at the end of the year and even a good many cops who will use the new building are shaking their heads.

They see a poorly designed building that while aesthetically pleasing does in no way address the needs of a police and civilian work force of about 200.

Parking will be available for 87 stalls in the new police station; the Casino building owned by John Major has an underground parking site of 147 stalls owned by the city.

There are not enough lockers to cover the needs of the police officers who must store documents in their own locker secured. The down town Casino could be renovated to accommodate a jail in the area that was set aside for a number of condos. There are two floors in the Casino, it has good street appeal if that is the main reason we are building a new station ,and above all it would cost a whole lot less money in order to meet the needs.

The City Hall might be also well advised to keep in mind that the fire hall is getting old, and needs to be replaced, is there any reason why the fire department should be considered second class?

The North District RCMP offices are not fully utilized a number of the units have moved out of their building, what are the plans for that building?

A private developer could and would build a building quite sufficient for the RCMP at about $250 dollars a square foot, a far cry from the $460 a foot being proposed. That building could be leased back by the City for the RCMP at about $12 dollars a square foot and when you crunch the numbers you will discover it would save the City millions of dollars without burning up our credit card.

The by law to build a new police building will require a reverse petition , judging from the back lash it could achieve the necessary 10% to force a vote.

I’m Meisner and that’s one man’s opinion.

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Thursday, May 21, 2009 03:45 AM in Views by Ben Meisner

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: CaringSoul on May 21 2009 8:18 AM

Thank you Ben! Finally someone is saying exactly what the TAX PAYERS have been saying. Our City Council needs to work for us and try and SAVE MONEY. Now is not the time to be spending on what we want but ONLY on what we really NEED. Find the cheapest solution and do it. Work for the people who pay your wages for once.

Posted by: Andyfreeze on May 21 2009 8:39 AM

Well said Ben!

Posted by: nu2PG on May 21 2009 8:59 AM

I'm new here but I think it would make sense to use a building that is already there and not being used. There are enough empty buildings in downtown PG already and its looking derelict.

Thanks, I am learning about PG by listening to your show Ben.

Posted by: hammmy on May 21 2009 9:01 AM

TAXTAXTAXTAXTAXTAXTAXTAXTAXTAXTAXTAXTAX!

Posted by: lmorge on May 21 2009 9:26 AM

Meisner is not saying anything new that we, the posters on this site have not already said.

Posted by: Loki on May 21 2009 9:50 AM

about this consultant:
Does he have a clue that it snows up to six months of the year.
Being as the designer is not from BC, does he understand that we drive mostly real trucks that are much larger that those metro vehicles.

Posted by: Rainbow on May 21 2009 10:34 AM

I agree with Dan Rogers when he said a positive work environment would help with retention. And it wouldn't hurt productivity and staff morale either. The RCMP detachment on Brunswick Street is old, has a very negative vibe and should be demolished...no chance of renos there.I am all for providing the RCMP with a decent space but not at the estimated price tag. We have other outstanding issues that need to be tended to. And this is focused on downtown. What about the neglected folks up on the Hart? Mayor and council need to see the bigger picture here. A balanced approach would be appreciated.

Posted by: Resident on May 21 2009 10:39 AM

When can we elect a new mayor? Dave Wilbur comes to mind as he seems the only person who seems to be able to relate to the taxpayer.

Posted by: kagee on May 21 2009 12:42 PM

I just got back from California where the taxpayer get to vote on all taxes. On Tuesday they voted down all 5 measures dealing with higher taxes and they passed the one that banned pay raises for elected officials in deficity years. "We all have to live within our means and that includes the state" was the reason given for voting down the tax increases. I think that it about time that "we the taxpayers" were able to vote like they do in California and some other states. This ablity to vote on all measures goes right to the municipal and school board levels.

Here the City has the idea that a few extra dollars per month is nothing, but they keep adding on "those few extra dollars" until I can't afford my house anymore.

Posted by: caranmacil on May 21 2009 1:38 PM

ummmm, california is broke isnt it?

Posted by: Bridge on May 21 2009 5:56 PM

The present pol;ice station was designed to have additional f;oors added on top of the present structure. what became of that plan?

The present picture of the RCMP will need more then a lovely building to retain and encourage new members to the force.

As has been suggested the bingo palace would be more then adiquate for the RCMP. I'm sure Mr Major would be delighted to rent the building to the city for a new police building and it would well suit their present image

Cheers

Posted by: Wolfie on May 21 2009 9:52 PM

As someone said earlier, people have been posting with this suggestion for months. Why hasn't it seriously been looked into?

Posted by: Palopu on May 21 2009 10:08 PM

Another example of Prince George in Action.

1957 Build new police station on Seventh Avenue.

1980's Build new police station on 9th and Brunswick.

2009 Propose to build new police station at 4th and Victoria.

That would be 3 new police stations in approx 50 years.

Old police station on Seventh Avenue eventually tore down, and Casino Gaming building built.

Some people now suggest that the Gaming Casino be renovated and used for?????
You got it"""" A police station.

Round and round we go, where it stops nobody knows.

The building at 9th and Brunswick could very easily be renovated to accomodate what we need for a police station, however I suspect that the City Planners, have plans for the land that this station is located on. My guess is that, that is where they would like to build the new PAC. It would tie in the with the Civic Centre, Library, Art Centre, Swimming Pool, etc.

Most people in Prince George would agree that a properly renovated Police Station, and no PAC would be the common sense and fiscal responsible way to go. This would cost us less than $20 Million.

Who wants to bet that the City will continue to push for the $46 Million police station, and a $30 to $40 Million PAC. for a total of $86 Million plus interest, all the while pretending to be cost concious.

Posted by: gus on May 22 2009 8:42 AM

I came here in the early 1970's and the existing police station was in place then. That makes it 35+ years old.

As several are saying, the columns and footings are designed to take another three floors. In fact, if you look at google earth or the city's aerial photomap on tis site, you can see the stubs of the columns where rebar has been covered to provide that connection. It is a 5 x 6 grid with column spacing measured from the aerial phot of 24ft. by 28ft.

Look at this picture of the building.

http://www.bearspage.info/h/tra/ca/bc/i/pg/p108.jpg

Notice the canopies over the two entries. The are there to allow for hallways from that building to "bridge" Brunswick to another building. That allows for an additional expansion option.

Don't like the exterior? Don't blame you. I agree. Clad it with new material. Done all the time. Glass - green, blue, pink tints .... whatever your fancy. That can be used to make a Trombe wall of two sides of the building.

The building is like any other modern office building downtown - Royal Bank, Scotia, HKSB, Paza 400 - other than the columns, the space is totally flexible. Walls, ceilings, etc. are changed all the time. Want to bring some light into the centre of the building? Remove a couple of slabs and you got yourself an atrium. Better still, close Burnswick St. at that end since itr is not used, build a new building component accross the street and create an atrium where the street now is.

This can be a show piece of a re-used building which will be capable of getting a LEED certificate for many reasons, including that it will use an existing building and making the whole complex more energy efficient.

http://www.arch.mcgill.ca/prof/sijpkes/arch304/winter2001/cszasz/passive_solar/index.htm

Why is this City a throw-it-away City?

Posted by: Lamb on May 22 2009 10:41 AM

Great thinking Gus. Why not?

Posted by: gus on May 22 2009 10:51 AM

They don't make architects like they used to Lamb. Too many want a clean slate to put thier masterpiece on. They do not understand urban fabric and how to design ture infill projects which makes the urban fabric stronger rather than weaker.

Posted by: Bridge on May 22 2009 11:00 AM

As most of the projects that the city undertakes are not about supplying a need . Its about building an empire for the manderins at city hall and council is gullible enough to eat their ego.

Cheers

Posted by: StreetWise2 on May 22 2009 2:49 PM

No matter how many times this issue is addressed, people keep complaining that it never adressed:

Taken directly from the Agenda of a City Council meeting: (took about 30 seconds to find it on the web site)

"The current RCMP detachment building was constructed in 1972 to initially accommodate the RCMP and provincial court. When the court relocated in 1986, extensive renovations were undertaken to allow the RCMP to make use of the entire building. The building has been renovated several times since 1986 to meet changing police service needs and in 1995, work began on plans to increase the size of the existing facility or to construct a new facility. In 2004 Council instructed that land be acquired in the downtown to accommodate plans for a new facility. Council has taken subsequent decisions to direct design work. "

So if you really think its a good idea to expand the current building, go to city hall and ask for the assessment that was done on the current building to see why it was determined that it was not feasable to upgrade the current building.

The definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over and expect different results. Do you think the building got better with age? Do you think it is going to be cheaper to fix now then it was in 2004?

Here are some other points:

Posted by: StreetWise2 on May 22 2009 2:50 PM

http://www.princegeorgecitizen.com/20090514192094/opinion/letters/a-palace-of-policing.html

Posted by: gus on May 22 2009 6:35 PM

From the letter to the editor:

"The existing building requires major structural repairs - the second floor is collapsing,"

Rather a bold statement, isn't it? If it was, the building would be condemned as the old Civic Centre was at one time and people moved elsewhere. Dramatic sounding, but let's have some further inforamtion about that which gives it some credibility.

"the roof is rotting and needs to be replaced"

The roof is concrete and is not likely rotting. What is likely meant is that the roofing is rotting. So what? Reroofing buildings, especially in this part fo the world where they build cheap roofs is not unusual. They typically have a 20 year life cycle. Have you never watched new rood being put on buildings? They very rarely tear down buildings because the rood is "rotting".

"insulation needs to be added" So add it. Hardly a reason to tear a building down.

"concrete is literally falling of the outer facade". How big are the chunks? Take a close lok at the Court House and, CNC and several other buildings with "outsulation" in town. Look at the hairline cracks in the stucco. All allow water penetration. It is only a matter of time before they have to be repaired. Repairing buildings is not unusual. Do you live in a house that does not require repairs. If you live in an older house, did you never put additional insulation into the attic? A house down the street is 30 years old. They are replacing the entire outside finish. They decided not to tear the house down. Pretty stupid of them, isn't it?

I wore my new shirt three times. I am not washing it because it costs too much energy and the soap is not good for the river where it will end up. So I am buying a new shirt tomorrow.

Posted by: Lamb on May 22 2009 7:05 PM

Familiar with architects of Arthur Erickson's calibre, Gus. I stand with you that the building was built for future expansion.

Posted by: Nowicki on May 23 2009 1:36 PM

Have you noticed that in Prince George how it is easy to raise money for new buildings from the government in Victoria and Ottawa or PG tax payers. 50 Millions wasted for the sport center, 40 Millions for that station, ... .

Let's say the above 90 Millions was
wisely invested in keeping the mills open, functioning and without pullution.

Any functiong city council or department should have a priority list of tasks to do and allocate time and money according to the urgency of the task. Currently building new buildings in the town is a very high priority task and pollution of the environment and pollution of city center by empty buildings are at the bottom of the list with very low priority.

Posted by: gus on May 23 2009 5:00 PM

"50 Millions wasted for the sport center"

Inflation before a place is built is one thing..... but let's not inflate a building by a factor or 2 after it is built .... shoots your credibility all to hell.

What you are talking about is not only a PG thing. It is Canada-wide and the discussion of most if not all major municipal governments since every single one is stuck with the operating bills of most of those civic buildings and they do not like it one bit.

Posted by: gus on May 23 2009 5:02 PM

Pollution ....... its called Smart Growth on the Ground .... pollution in this community is primarily in the air .... but we are not doing Smart Growth in the Air ... maybe it is time we did.