The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMinutes - April 26, 2022 SSLODI CITY COUNCIL SHIRTSLEEVE SESSION CARNEGIE FORUM, 305 WEST PINE STREET TUESDAY, APRIL 26, 2022 An Informal Informational Meeting ("Shirtsleeve" Session) of the Lodi City Council was held Tuesday, April 26, 2022, commencing at 7:03 a.m. Present: Council Member Khan, Council Member Kuehne, Council Member Nakanishi, Mayor Pro Tempore Hothi, and Mayor Chandler Absent: None Also Present: City Manager Schwabauer, City Attorney Magdich, and City Clerk Nashed Public Works Director Charles Swimley provided a brief introduction regarding the proposed Animal Services facility. LPA Partners Consultants Carolyn Natividad and Paris Allen provided a PowerPoint presentation regarding the project. Specific topics of discussion included project description and goals, interior and exterior building design, animal care approach, project location, and cost. Council Member Kuehne stated he loved the concept and that he is thrilled for a new shelter. Council Member Khan stated that this project has been long overdue and that he is excited to move forward and ensure that the City takes care of the homeless animals. Mayor Chandler stated that the project couldn’t be soon enough and asked how long will it take to complete. In response, LDA Partners Consultant Natividad stated that the totality of the project will take about 14 months. Public Works Director Swimley stated that the staff’s goal is to complete the project by September 2024, with a rough cost estimate of about eleven to twelve million dollars. In response to Council Member Kuehne’s question regarding if there will additional storage space for the Lodi Police Department, Public Works Director Swimley responded yes, there will be. Council Member Nakanishi stated that since this project is mainly due to Measure L, he is recommending that there should be a plaque at the new animal services facility that states that the project was paid for by the people of Lodi. He also asked about the impact on Animal Services from 10 years ago versus today. In response, Animal Services Supervisor Jennifer Bender responded that the City has grown from 24 dog kennels to 48 kennels and that the shelter will help maintain the growth. In response to Council Member Nakanishi’s follow up question on maintenance costs, City Manager Steve Schwabauer stated that the new shelter will easier to maintain over the next five to ten years. In response to Council Member Nakanishi’s follow up question on whether 12,000 square feet is the general size, Public Works Director Swimley stated that the size is consistent with other cities A.Call to Order / Roll Call B.Topics B-1 Receive Information on Proposed Animal Services Facility and Request Council Feedback Regarding Concept Plans and Potential Site Locations. (PW) 1 similar in size to the City of Lodi and that this size is just preliminary. City Manager Schwabauer stated that City staff is looking for direction from the City Council regarding the overall concept, whether they desire a medical facility, and a confirmed location. He stated that if the Council wishes to include the medical facility, there were will be no additional funds for park improvements, as was discussed prior. In response to Council Member Nakanishi’s question regarding whether the money allocated to park improvements at the April 20, 2022 City Council Meeting will be impacted, Deputy City Manager Andrew Keys stated that those one-time funds will not be impacted. Mayor Chandler asked about the difference between a medical facility within the Animal Shelter and taking the animals to a veterinarian. In response, Animal Services Supervisor Bender and Contract Veterinarian Dr. Elaine Dornton stated that every animal admitted must be neutered before adoption. However, local veterinarians are too busy with their own clients, which delays the neutering and adoption processes. Dr. Dornton stated that fifty percent of the animals have medical needs; if those needs are met sooner, the animals can be adopted sooner. Council Member Khan stated that the City should look forward to 20 years from now and that he was in favor of having care in the same facility and it will save money. Police Chief Sierra Brucia thanked Public Works Director Swimley and LDA Partners for their efforts on the project. He stated that the Police Department is currently looking into contracting services with a veterinarian in Elk Grove. He further stated that this would increase costs, staff time, and may require an increase in staffing; this contract would be the future of Lodi Animal Services, if there was no medical facility. Mayor Chandler asked about the pros and cons of Pixley Park housing the new Animal Services facility. In response, City Manager Schwabauer stated that there will be a park in the vicinity, it will be viewable to residents from the road, and that the location is less industrial. He stated that the con is that the structure will be more constrained than the design suggests. None. No action was taken by the City Council. The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 a.m. C.Comments by Public on Non-Agenda Items THE TIME ALLOWED PER NON-AGENDA ITEM FOR COMMENTS MADE BY THE PUBLIC IS LIMITED TO FIVE MINUTES. D.Adjournment ATTEST: Olivia Nashed City Clerk 2 New Animal Services Facility City of Lodi 26 April 2022 Context & Parameters Project Goals •Facility serving modern needs •Durable •Design that is true to its time •Environmentally sensitive •Blends in with natural surrounding •Quality •Energy Efficient •Comprehensive animal care •Be a welcome environment •Animal & Staff well-being Core Principals 1. City “Perspective” –The City performing the services it is mandated to do. 2. Moral “Perspective” – Beyond the government mandate, there are some things that we are morally bound to do. 3. Animal & Human Environment “Perspective” Lodi Animal Services program Program With Spay / Neuter building design & animal care approach Existing Conditions Building Design & Animal Care Entry Building Design & Animal Care Building Design & Animal Care Cat Habitats •Glass fronts •Privacy sections •11 sf per cat / Cage size: 2.3’ d x 4’ to 5’ l •Double sided -horizontal and vertical •More rooms with fewer cats per room •Natural light / Visual enrichment Cats Building Design & Animal Care Sound Control Halving the number of dogs reduces the noise by 3 dB. One quarter of the dogs by 6 dB. This decision should be based on usage functionality and the best way to manage dogs. Fully grouted CMU walls between kennel pods The noise reduction from application of sound-absorbing panels can be approx. 8-10 dB, which correlates to ½ noise reduction. The ceiling is more important than the walls. Ceiling only: reduction of approx 5-7 dB. Walls only (not recommended): approx. 3-4 dB reduction. Building Design & Animal Care Building Design & Animal Care Dog Habitats •Larger / able to accommodate longer stays •Double sided - Indoor/Outdoor •More rooms with fewer dogs per room •Lots of daylight /Visual enrichment •Durable Finishes / Easy to clean and maintain •Drains and floor slopes Laundry •Commercial washers and dryers •Utility sinks •Circulation -dirty in, clean out •Clean laundry storage Staff & Animal Support Areas Dish Washing / Food Prep •Commercial dishwasher •Stainless steel counters •Circulation -dirty in, clean out Building Design & Animal Care Support •Grooming •Animal intake procedures •Separation & isolation Site Building Design & Animal Care Community Feedback Building Design & Animal Care Community Forum on 4-12-22 •Preference for Pixley Park Site •Needs for In-house veterinary services (spay/ Neuter) •Larger Dog Exercise Yards •Preference for Natural Turf in exercise yards Pros: •Cooler •Natural Aesthetic •Lower initial cost Cons: •Greater Maintenance •Maintenance •Can be susceptible to disease transmission Conceptual Floor Plan -Spay / Neuter Building Design & Animal Care Building Design & Animal Care Building Circulation -Spay / Neuter Building Design & Animal Care Animal Habitats -Spay / Neuter site / building Site Location Options Site #1 Auto Center Drive & Pixley Park Site #2 Thurman Rd. & Guild Ave. Site #1 Pros: •Closer to public center & interaction •Less industrial neighborhood •Adjacent to future park Site #2 Pros: •Corner visibility Cons: •Adjacent to Public Utility & railroad (noise) •Further away from public center & interaction conceptual building Conceptual Building Conceptual Building Conceptual Building Conceptual Building Conceptual Building Conceptual Building Conceptual Building Conceptual Building $12,800,000 Total Estimated Cost $10,250,000 Hard Costs $1,500,000 Site $8,500,000 New Building (12,500sf) $ 250,000 Misc. $1,800,000 Soft Costs $992,000 Design/ Geotech (9%) $108,000 Tests & Inspection (1.5%) $150,000 Permit Fees $450,000 FFE $100,000 Misc. $$ TBD Land $750,000 Contingency •Anticipated costs of Vet Services area approx. $700,000 Cost Control Strategies •Utilize In-house data mine •Review recent Bid results & cost of similar projects •Talk to Contractors who are building similar projects •Utilize Project Team Internal estimator questions