Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Nelson Fialho/Mr. David Haglund Page 4 <br />Preliminary Issues Assessment of Potential Colocation of Maintenance Facilities <br />Part 1: Issues to Consider Regarding Co-Location <br />Management Partners reviewed all the information provided and identified 1 6 issues for <br />consideration by City and District leaders. Those issues are shown in Table 1 below. <br />Table 1. List of Issues to Consider <br />Questions Identified <br />1.Which functions are appropriate for co-location at the Operations Services Center? <br />2.Can current buildings or outside spaces be reconfigured to accommodate District uses? <br />3.Could some functions be coordinated or could some spaces be shared by both entities? <br />4.Are there alternatives available other than the Operations Services Center site? <br />5.What future needs may the City have for expansion of staff, facilities and equipment at the <br />Operations Services Center due to population growth and build out? <br />6.How will parking needs be accommodated with increased uses at the Operations Services Center? <br />7.What changes in circulation may be needed to accommodate the safe movement of an increased <br />number of vehicles? <br />8.What communication and power requirements would be needed for the increased functions? <br />9.What hazardous materials may be produced or stored by the District that will need to be handled <br />on-site? <br />10. What clarifications or new guidelines may be needed regarding on-site storage of sensitive records <br />for either agency? <br />11. What will be the costs to move the District’s operations to the site and then to maintain the <br />expanded uses on the site? <br />12. What steps will be taken to ensure that the two organizations can work well side by side and who <br />will manage the center? <br />13. What branding will be needed at a co-located site? <br />14. What employee relations concerns could arise from any next steps? <br />15. What long term policy commitment would such a move mean for the City and District? <br />16. Who will take responsibility for implementation of the next steps in the process and for future <br />project management? <br />Introduction to the Issues <br />In reviewing the data provided on current maintenance operations and identifying questions to <br />be answered, we offer the observations below. <br />•If the District’s non-maintenance operations were excluded, the remaining functions <br />being moved would require approximately17,000 square feet (plus storage areas and an <br />auto service bay), workspace for 35 employees, 30 fleet vehicles and additional parking <br />for staff and visitors. The maintenance functions are similar to what is there now and <br />could be complementary. <br />•Both the City and District have insufficient parking now for their needs. It is not clear <br />that this would be resolved with more employees on site (and assuming no public <br />serving uses are added). <br />•The Operations Services Center is a maintenance yard with auxiliary functions that the <br />City is able to manage because they either occur on the weekend (police and fire