By Ken Koerner
Register Staff

3-13-2008

Whether the Bishop Police Department can and should continue to make due with the limited space at its disposal has reemerged as a key issue for city officials.

According to City Administrator Rick Pucci, the main challenge facing the department is cramped quarters impacting current operations and curtailing future growth.
There are several ways the city can approach the situation, he told the City Council on Monday, but each scenario comes with its own set of pros and cons.
Councilmembers ended the evening without a consensus choice on how to proceed, but suggested holding workshops on the matter to gain insight to the community’s perspective.
Reminding the council that “this is something we’ve known wouldn’t go away,” Pucci presented three options for addressing the police department space issue.
“Option 1 is we don’t do anything at the present time. Currently, the existing building is in legal compliance,” Pucci said, “so we can stick with the status quo. The pro is minimal cost. The con is that we’ll have little to no long-term ability to make desired and/or required modifications.”

The Dispatch Center for the Bishop Police Department is tucked into a room that also now serves as file storage within a station house where space is at a premium. Photo by Ken Koerner

Option 2, explained Pucci, is the possible purchase of the Verizon property on Lagoon Street. “Though Verizon hadn’t been interested in selling in the past, they’ve now indicated a willingness to discuss the purchase of the unused property,” Pucci said.
An appraisal of the property done by Verizon totals $2.2 million, according to Pucci, and some detailed costs of relocation have been obtained. “Based upon Verizon’s appraisal of the 1.7-acre property and its nearly 11,000 square-foot primary building, along with the relocation of the (police) department,” Pucci said, “we estimate the cost for Option 2 would run $4.1 million.”
The pros Pucci suggested included the building’s potential for serving current and future police department needs; plus a potential for attractive funding sources and possibly grants.
One of Option 2’s cons explained Pucci, is that “100 percent funding is never available ­– so the city will incur some long-term debt.”
Unlike with the first option, Option 2 does entail “some up-front commitment” on the part of the City of Bishop.
“The City Council would need to authorize the necessary architectural and design work to more accurately define suitability and final costs,”  he said. Pucci estimated costs for that study to be “about $185,000.”
Finally, Option 3 would be “looking at the present site as being redesigned and modified to address being the long-term home for both fire and police services,” Pucci said.
His pros for Option 3 included “ … the site is in close proximity to all city services; fire and police facilities would be structurally brought into modern-day compliance; and it would ensure fire and police as ‘Last Building Standing’ compliant by including public safety as opposed to police only, enhancing the city’s ability to obtain outside funding.”
On his cons list Pucci pointed out that “overall costs would potentially be higher and certain added costs would be incurred due to temporary closure of both departments’ facilities during a major retrofit.”
As with choice two, Option 3 comes with the same up-front expenditure for design and architectural services “to learn what could be done and how much it would cost in the end.”
Staff was not asking the City Council to make a decision at Monday’s meeting, Pucci said, “but we wanted to bring this raw, yet informed perspective to the council and to the public’s attention. There could be other options out there, but we need to do a certain amount of spending before we can get closer to knowing just what can be …”
Bishop Chief of Police Kathleen Sheehan was present during the council meeting, but did not participate in the presentation. In a subsequent interview, Sheehan offered her thoughts on why a change should prove valuable.
“The first improvement would come in our ability to better serve the public,” Sheehan said. “We have people forced to wait outside to speak with us because there’s no room in here. We have crime victims and witnesses that require confidentiality and better access.”
Sheehan also believes a suitable “community room would be a valuable improvement, providing for public gatherings and a setting for department training and workshops.”
The third area Sheehan addressed relates to storage. “Right now our ability to collect and store evidence properly risks being compromised,” said Sheehan. “It’s a difficult challenge for the department currently and the potential for problems with the handling of evidence does exist in cramped quarters.”
Sheehan also sees gaining additional space enabling the establishment of an Emergency Operations Center.
“I’m not campaigning or complaining when it comes to discussions about the opportunity for this department to gain more room,” Sheehan said. “Our men and women are doing an excellent job of staying atop all that a modern police department must be prepared to handle – but there’s no question that this is a problem area that is going to need to be addressed sooner or later.”
That same sentiment was expressed in council chambers following Pucci’s lengthy presentation. “Sooner or later,” Councilman Frank Crom said, “we’re going to have  to get a new police department building.”