HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20130903
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
September 03, 2013
4:00 PM, City Council Chambers
MEETING AGENDA
I. Informal Meeting with Kids First Staff
II. Yellow Brick Security (at Yellow Brick)
III. Neale Avenue Improvement Project
Page 1 of 6
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Shirley Ritter, Director Kids First
Security Review Committee (Nancy Nichols, Chip Seamans,
Scott Miller, Jeff Pendarvis, & Courtney DeVito)
THRU: R. Barry Crook, Assistant City Manager
DATE OF MEMO: August 23, 2013
MEETING DATE: September 3, 2013
RE: Yellow Brick Building Security System
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: This memo is to provide information about the proposed Yellow
Brick Building Security System to Aspen City Council for future contract and funding approval.
We are seeking direction to bring this contract to you for approval.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: On May 20, 2013 the security review committee presented
their recommendation from the research and RFP process to the Aspen City Council at a work
session. The meeting notes from that work session are Attachment 1. At that time council
directed staff to get more feedback from the families and users of the building.
BACKGROUND: The Yellow Brick Building is home away from home for 150 children and
about 60 staff every day, Monday through Friday. Security and emergency preparedness is an
ongoing issue and is discussed regularly. The building was last re-keyed over 10 years ago; there
is no intercom system; no video surveillance; and no way to lock the many doors in an
emergency.
After recent shootings, including Sandy Hook Elementary School, childcare staff and parents
asked to meet to talk about security at the Yellow Brick Building. Since January, as a short term
solution, all exterior doors (21 on the main level) are locked on a schedule that allows access for
families during high traffic times at the beginning and end of the day; and allows access for
families other times of the day by signing in and out with a temporary staff person (not a security
person) assigned to the door. Parents use only the main east (Garmisch Street) and west (1st
Street) entrances. Staff use these doors, the south (playground side) playground doors and the
south handicap access door. Staff on the lower level uses the south side entry doors to the lower
level.
We have held numerous parent and staff meetings to discuss the current situation, short term
ideas, long term ideas, and overall emergency responsiveness. There was clear direction from
parents to make the building more secure, and they have been very appreciative of the short term
P1
II.
Page 2 of 6
efforts and trainings in the past months. Our long-term goal is to make the Yellow Brick
Building a safe place for children and staff. The building is also unique in that it houses childcare
on the main level; city offices and 2 non-profit offices on the lower level. Part of our goal is to
more securely separate these uses while allowing normal business function to occur.
The Aspen School District has two School Resource Officers. They are regular police and
sheriff’s deputies, are armed, on site, and are the first call if there is an incident; they are then in
charge of standard response protocol. The schools routinely close all interior doors after children
are in the classrooms. They have video surveillance at the high school, and have budgeted for an
upgrade there with the addition of cameras at the middle and elementary schools. All outside
doors are locked except the main entrance door at each building; visitors sign in and wear a
visitor nametag. They have budgeted for window blinds as a way to reduce the ability to see into
the classrooms from the outside and the interior hallways. The schools also have posters and
drills using the SRP. Generally public schools have most children arriving by bus and not so
much parent traffic as childcare centers.
Many childcare programs in our area and across the state have a coded access, but use a variety
of methods including having just one universal code and changing it periodically. Some are
connected to computer storage, some are not. Some programs have limited video surveillance.
Most childcare programs have alarms and use a security company to provide monitoring. All
local childcare programs have increased emergency drills for staff or staff and children using the
same SRP.
The childcare programs hold fire drills at least monthly and have been trained in standard
response protocol (SRP) used in schools nationwide by Tina Thompson – APD and Paul
Hufnagle – Pitkin County Sheriff’s Department; both are School Resource Officers (SRO) at the
Aspen School District. Linda Consuegra also provided expertise in the early stages of identifying
our needs and providing expertise and resources.
Kids First brought together experts to serve as a review committee for the RFP for increased
security at the Yellow Brick Building in response to heightened requests from parents of children
in the Yellow Brick childcare programs. We reviewed 6 proposals, asked for a second round of
questions to clarify some of the differences in the proposals, and finally interviewed the top 2
choices. Thanks to Nancy Nichols-Yellow Brick Building Manager, Chip Seamans- Aspen
Police Department, Scott Miller – Asset Manager, Jeff Pendarvis – Asset Property Manager, and
Courtney DeVito – Risk Manager.
This committee is recommending this proposal because it meets those needs using new
technology in ways that will still allow the Yellow Brick Building to feel welcoming and
friendly to children and families. The Kids First Advisory Board also recommends and is
supportive of this security system proposal for the Yellow Brick Building.
DISCUSSION: Our initial response to safety and security concerns was both to learn about and
seek a long-term solution, and to do what we could in the short-term to increase security for
children and staff in the Yellow Brick Building. Our long-term goal became that of providing as
P2
II.
Page 3 of 6
much safety and security as reasonably possible while still fitting in the environment of
community expectations.
Since the May city council work session, city staff from Asset, Risk Management, Kids First,
Police, and the Manager’s Office- Community relations and Business Process Departments
distributed a survey and held 2 open house events at the Yellow Brick Building.
• The on-line survey was distributed through Open City Hall and directly by email to the
families and staff (+/-200 people) in the Yellow Brick Building. Over a 6 week period in
June and July there were 35 responses to the survey.
• The open house information sessions were held August 13 and 22, from 3:30 to 5:30 PM.
We advertised in both daily newspapers on August 12, in the Monday city column in the
Aspen Times, through City Source, and again by email to the families and staff in the
building. We had a total of 23 people participate in the open house meetings. The results
and comments are Attachment B.
What is being proposed?
Components of the proposed security system include:
1. Access Control – biometric fingerprint readers for families, keypad code entry for staff.
Individual codes are easily entered and deleted as people come and go. Index finger-print
reader is the most secure, most convenient for families.
a. Main doors on the east and west ends of the building will include both biometric
and code readers. Biometrics are easy to set up, maintain and delete users and it is
the most secure way to ensure that the users are who they say they are. Plus, there
are no issues with forgotten codes. Coded access to staff is very secure because it
can also be easily maintained and each code is unique to each employee. Codes
can be made to work on specific doors, for specific hours or times, and can be
changed if access needs change. All staff can access any of the specified entrances
using their 4-digit code.
b. Classroom doors to the playground (south side) will be only code readers for staff.
Teachers can easily use their code to go in and out as needed.
c. Classroom doors on the Hallam Street (north) side of the building will not be used
for access – only for fire egress.
d. Doors will be locked and readers in use 24/7, but access may be restricted to
specific days/hours.
e. The interior doors from the basement level to the upper level will also be coded to
allow separation of the office space from the childcare space.
f. Alerts will go to Kids First staff if doors are opened without a code, or blocked
open unless it is for fire egress.
g. All exterior doors will have magnetic locks to keep them securely closed; in the
event of emergency all exterior doors can be released or locked down at the same
time.
2. Surveillance – digital cameras will be installed on the exterior perimeter of the building,
in the basement entrances, east and west entrance areas, and in the main hallway. These
will provide real-time viewing, day and night; and will allow for storage in order to
review in the case of an incident. The cameras will also be able to be seen (with our
permission) by the Proguard monitoring system and by the police department on a smart
P3
II.
Page 4 of 6
phone or iPad. They will be in protective housing to prevent damage and will have a
backup battery in case of power outage. The equipment will be placed in the Kids First
office and will be housed on a stand-alone PC. Kids First staff will be able to view video
streams at any time, and will check periodically on entrances that cannot be seen from
any office or if an alarm sounds that a door is opened without a code. Video and alarms
will also be monitored by staff at Proguard. We anticipate a training period for staff to
learn new methods to enter and exit the building.
3. Security / Panic buttons – placed throughout the building; will be silent when pressed
and will alert police and Proguard at the same time. Panic buttons are commonly installed
at a teacher’s desk, or in a location that can be easily reached by a teacher, but of course
out of reach of children. They can also be worn like a watch or pendant by a teacher.
They are intended to be inconspicuous yet placed so that they cannot be accidentally
activated. The panic buttons have a one-mile range so can also be used by teachers on the
playground example.
4. Intercom System –will allow communication between classrooms and the Kids First
office in case of emergency. It will also allow Kids First staff to give entry to people who
are authorized but do not have a code or biometric scan in the system (a onetime visiting
grandparent for example). This system also has a backup battery for power outage, pre-
programmed buttons for emergency alerts (lock down message for example) that would
go to the entire building. Intercoms could be placed on a desk, or mounted on the wall.
The intent here also being easy to use and reach for teachers, but out of reach of children
so as not to be used as a toy or by accident.
Control hardware will be in Kids First office. There will be wiring through the building installed
in accordance with building codes. Proguard will test and monitor the system. The entire
installation time will be 5 weeks, most will not involve the classrooms and Proguard will work
evenings and weekends when needed to avoid disruption to the classrooms. There will be an
annual inspection of the equipment.
The Yellow Brick Building currently uses Aspen Patrol to check the security of the building after
hours. This service can also be handled by Proguard so there would be no increase in cost for on-
going monitoring.
CONTEXT FOR COUNCIL DECISION: The City of Aspen may want part of this security
discussion to grow to consider these other city buildings and activities that may be served by
access control or video observation.
Note that security at some employee housing locations already exists or is planned. In the end,
this higher level decision is about how you want to view the security situation at all of the
government facilities; whether you want to make distinctions between those that serve certain
age groups or not; how you assess the risk/cost equation in all venues that you are ultimately
responsible for; and what kind of atmosphere you wish to create given your answers to those
questions.
If the City of Aspen considers physical security at locations other than just the Yellow Brick, it
should view the security system from the perspective of a network enterprise solution. Instead of
P4
II.
Page 5 of 6
having local access control and video storage at each facility, all security at all facilities could be
managed by a single centralized server.
This could save the City considerable money by not duplicating the same control and storage
systems at each location. Having centralized management will allow for easier and less
expensive facility expansion in the future. Storing video images centrally provides the added
security of isolation from the local site. Because all system controls would be running on a fast
network that connects each facility by fiber optics, management of any building’s system could
be done either locally, or remotely by anyone authorized to do so from anywhere in the network.
Multiple users at multiple facilities would be able to access their own systems at the same time.
If the city chooses to go with a master server system that will manage security in all buildings
that cost to the city would be:
• $4,800 (one-time server purchase by IT)
• $9,634 (one-time professional services from Proguard)
• $8,000 (Additional software and control panel from Proguard)
$22,434 Initial cost to the City of Aspen
• $3,500 (annual IT cost allocation/server)
• $ 0 (annual software support fee from Proguard)
$3,500 Annual cost to the City of Aspen
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: The cost for the system as proposed for the Yellow Brick
Building is $91,665. This amount will be funded from the childcare capital reserve fund.
$ 91,665 Proguard Proposal
- $ 7,294 Deduct labor and equipment if City of Aspen chooses the master system
+ $ 5,029 IT hardware needed at the Yellow Brick Building
$ 89,390 Cost to the childcare fund if the City of Aspen chooses to implement a
master server system
The amount of the Proguard proposal plus IT costs in the Yellow Brick Building, if the City of
Aspen does not go with the master server system will be $96,684.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: There will be a slight increase in electrical use due to the
equipment – cameras, desktop, locks, and intercom. This is expected to be a maximum of 592.8
Kilowatts annually. This assumes using the system at its maximum capacity for 12 hours a day;
this is a worst case scenario, we do not expect to have usage this high.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Future Action request will be for contract and funding approval
to complete this project. Contract approval is scheduled for the consent agenda on May 28.
ALTERNATIVES: If council does not want to move forward with this project, alternatives
include: (1) replacing elements of this proposal with other elements, (2) leaving doors unlocked
providing no security at the Yellow Brick Building, or (3) another alternative altogether such as a
full time security officer. These alternatives and more were discussed with the review committee
P5
II.
Page 6 of 6
but were not recommended because of concerns about on-going costs or too much/too little
intrusion in the day to day functions at the Yellow Brick Building.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Proguard Proposal for Yellow Brick Building Security System – includes maps and
visuals of the hardware.
B. Feedback from the community survey and open house meetings
C. May 20 Aspen City Council work-session summary
D. Budget documents from Proguard
E. IT estimate of cost for hardware needed to support the security system in the Yellow
Brick Building.
P6
II.
P7
II.
P8
II.
P9
II.
P10
II.
P11
II.
P12
II.
P13
II.
P14
II.
P15
II.
P16
II.
P17
II.
P18
II.
P19
II.
KPSymbols Key Camera Monitor Security Key Pad Motion Detector Maglock Glass Break Camera Door Contact Intercom Panic Buttons AcessControl Keypad Biometric Door ReaderPIMDKBioCamGBM
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
P20II.
DK
DK
M
M
Cam
KPSymbols Key Camera Monitor Security Key Pad Motion Detector Maglock Glass Break Camera Door Contact Intercom Panic Buttons AcessControl Keypad Biometric Door ReaderPIMDKBioCamGBM P21II.
KPSymbols Key Camera Monitor Security Key Pad Motion Detector Maglock Glass Break Camera Door Contact Intercom Panic Buttons AcessControl Keypad Biometric Door ReaderPIMDKBioCamGBM
M
Cam Cam
Cam
Ca
m
Ca
m
Cam
Cam
Cam
Cam
C am
P22II.
Cam
KPSymbols Key Camera Monitor Security Key Pad Motion Detector Maglock Glass Break Camera Door Contact Intercom Panic Buttons AcessControl Keypad Biometric Door ReaderPIMDKBioCamGBM P23II.
KPSymbols Key Camera Monitor Security Key Pad Motion Detector Maglock Glass Break Camera Door Contact Intercom Panic Buttons AcessControl Keypad Biometric Door ReaderPIMDKBioCamGBM
KP
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P24II.
I
KP
KP
KPSymbols Key Camera Monitor Security Key Pad Motion Detector Maglock Glass Break Camera Door Contact Intercom Panic Buttons AcessControl Keypad Biometric Door ReaderPIMDKBioCamGBM P25II.
Attachment B - Comments from the two Yellow Brick Building Security Open House meetings:
What should be added or deleted from this system? Did we miss anything?
• No locked doors, no keypad or finger scanner
take your kids
• We really need to take REAL dangers SERIOUSLY! Just because “it’s Aspen” we can’t get too
comfortable. Because it IS ASPEN some crazy person may want to it take it out on our kids.
• I agree. What is the downside to protecting our kids?
• This is well thought out. Each of these items individually could save lives
many lives. People have panic buttons on their car keys, lock their mansions and have security on
some level to protect their homes and families
Building too? No one likes the idea of being watched but if a camera helps an emergency
responder get help to a classroom, why not?
• Key fob is the best choice for a panic button
• Parent education regarding access/use beginning of school session from Proguard would be
beneficial.
• This is a thorough, well thought out level of security for the largest childcare facility in the valley.
It also is designed to be emergency response approp
What do you want to tell Aspen City Council regarding security at the Yellow Brick
Building?
• Small price for peace of mind.
• I’m all for it
• For scanners and panic button and intercom, we do not live here to have our kids under this
strong security and no to scanner or keypad. A little panic overboard.
• It’s fine if staff feel this is what is appropriate for our community
• The biometric is really easy
• Staff and Kids First and law enforcement are the experts, I hope city council listens. T
expensive and highest tech is not always the best.
• Security doesn’t cost, it “SAVES”
• Go for it! We would like more security. Keep our kids safe.
• Let’s not get too comfortable because we line in Aspen, sadly it could happen here too! Take care
of our kids!
• All components are easy if staff think it is necessary and not burdensome during the day. No to
codes / biometrics on interior doors.
• Community decision – Due diligence and input from stakeholders is essential!
Overall, how do you feel about this
0
_______________________________________________________________
Comments from the two Yellow Brick Building Security Open House meetings:
What should be added or deleted from this system? Did we miss anything?
No locked doors, no keypad or finger scanner that is crazy, anyone could walk in and
We really need to take REAL dangers SERIOUSLY! Just because “it’s Aspen” we can’t get too
comfortable. Because it IS ASPEN some crazy person may want to it take it out on our kids.
s the downside to protecting our kids?
This is well thought out. Each of these items individually could save lives – collectively could save
many lives. People have panic buttons on their car keys, lock their mansions and have security on
tect their homes and families – why not protect all 150 kids at Yellow Brick
Building too? No one likes the idea of being watched but if a camera helps an emergency
responder get help to a classroom, why not?
Key fob is the best choice for a panic button
arent education regarding access/use beginning of school session from Proguard would be
This is a thorough, well thought out level of security for the largest childcare facility in the valley.
It also is designed to be emergency response appropriate. Do it!
What do you want to tell Aspen City Council regarding security at the Yellow Brick
Small price for peace of mind. I agree
For scanners and panic button and intercom, we do not live here to have our kids under this
rong security and no to scanner or keypad. A little panic overboard.
It’s fine if staff feel this is what is appropriate for our community
Staff and Kids First and law enforcement are the experts, I hope city council listens. T
expensive and highest tech is not always the best.
Security doesn’t cost, it “SAVES”
Go for it! We would like more security. Keep our kids safe.
Let’s not get too comfortable because we line in Aspen, sadly it could happen here too! Take care
All components are easy if staff think it is necessary and not burdensome during the day. No to
codes / biometrics on interior doors.
Due diligence and input from stakeholders is essential!
Overall, how do you feel about this Security System Proposal?
5
_______________________________________________________________
Comments from the two Yellow Brick Building Security Open House meetings:
What should be added or deleted from this system? Did we miss anything?
that is crazy, anyone could walk in and
We really need to take REAL dangers SERIOUSLY! Just because “it’s Aspen” we can’t get too
comfortable. Because it IS ASPEN some crazy person may want to it take it out on our kids.
collectively could save
many lives. People have panic buttons on their car keys, lock their mansions and have security on
why not protect all 150 kids at Yellow Brick
Building too? No one likes the idea of being watched but if a camera helps an emergency
arent education regarding access/use beginning of school session from Proguard would be
This is a thorough, well thought out level of security for the largest childcare facility in the valley.
What do you want to tell Aspen City Council regarding security at the Yellow Brick
For scanners and panic button and intercom, we do not live here to have our kids under this
Staff and Kids First and law enforcement are the experts, I hope city council listens. The most
Let’s not get too comfortable because we line in Aspen, sadly it could happen here too! Take care
All components are easy if staff think it is necessary and not burdensome during the day. No to
Due diligence and input from stakeholders is essential!
10
_______________________________________________________________
P26
II.
1
ASPEN CITY COUNCIL
WORK SESSION MEETING NOTES
TO: Mayor and City Council
PRESENTED BY: Shirley Ritter, Director Kid’s First
Barry Crook, John Sobieralski
MEETING DATE: May 20, 2013
AGENDA TOPIC: Yellow Brick Building Security System
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Ireland, Torre, Johnson, Frisch, and Skadron
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: This worksession was to provide information about the proposed
Yellow Brick Building Security System to Aspen City Council for future contract and funding
approval. We sought direction in order to bring this contract to you for approval.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: In 2011 a smaller amount of funding ($10,000) was approved
for new access control only. The cost ended up being higher and the project more complicated than
first anticipated, so it was tabled at that time.
SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION:
Staff Discussion: The memo and presentation to city council discussed the background and goal for
providing a higher level of security at the Yellow Brick Building housing childcare programs that
serve 150 children and accommodate 60 staff every day. Parent concerns and requests initiated the
conversation about increased security following the shooting of school children at Sandy Hook
Elementary School. The memo outlined the communication, meetings, and short-term steps that
have happened since January, and then expanded into the proposal for a long-term solution.
The components of the security system were described: limiting access to unauthorized people,
video observation, intercom system and panic buttons. Improved procedures and drills for staff were
also discussed. Frank Bauer, President, Proguard Protection Services and Chris Bishop, Vice
President of Operations, Proguard Protection Services, explained and showed more details about
how the proposed system would work.
The bigger context of city-wide feelings about security and council’s willingness to make
distinctions between different uses and age groups, or the assessment of risk vs. cost in the bigger
picture was addressed.
P27
II.
2
Staff Recommendation: Budget for the system was presented both as specific to the Yellow Brick
Building and if the I.T. components were housed on a city-wide server. Staff discussed possible
next steps to move forward and listed options for council to consider.
SUMMARY OF COUNCIL COMMENTS:
Mick Ireland:
Who will watch the television camera images? (Answer: Yellow Brick staff, but not
continuously, or some central function if moved to the network, or Proguard – at a
price . . . it will also be recorded for later viewing/review)
How many doors will be “exit only”? – made of what material?
Are we changing the composition of the doors at entrance (Answer: No, they will
have glass in them)
Classroom doors? – how solid? Locked?
Torre:
Did you do a survey of parents? (Answer: they came to us and asked ‘what are you
going to do?’)
For security here and elsewhere – what was the feedback on the fingerprint readers?
Who else uses them? What is their experience/feedback? APD input?
What is the “view plane” of the external cameras? (Answer: 360 views and zoom-
able, up to about 75 feet out the picture is pretty clear – but the cameras are
positioned more along the outer walls and will be used to view the building, except
for the camera in the playground which will be directed towards the playground.)
Does APD patrol the Yellow Brick? (Answer: Periodically, not as a standard
practice – was increased a bit after the Sandy Hook incident.)
Derek Johnson:
Reach out to the parents more, some not so favorable, tenants have some concerns . .
. perhaps this proposal is too much of a pendulum swing reaction . . . intercom “Yes”
. . . panic button “No” . . . access control – remove the city offices in basement
somewhere else . . . biometric readers “No” . . . there must be other ways to handle
this . . . more user involvement first.
Adam Frisch:
Urgency? (Answer: we’ve been working on this since January)
What is level of agreement from parents and tenants? (Answer: very little negative
feedback so far with current system.)
Can we activate a locking door?
Is for an increase in security – even as a first step for other facilities.
Wants more confidence about agreement from users . . . focus on the external doors
– add activation for inner doors . . not as concerned about biometric readers as
others – the need drives that technological solution
How to let access still be easy?
Steve Skadron:
Difficult threshold questions to consider. Does it create a safe place or just a sense of
security that may well be false?
P28
II.
3
Mick Ireland:
Would we just be “moving the assailant around” with this system at Yellow Brick –
to other places like the Aspen Youth Center?
How far do we go?
Have an open house so you can discern what people are concerned about – let that
inform possible survey questions.
No need to rush this . . . need more public input.
COUNCIL DIRECTION:
1. Council felt an agenda item on the May 28 agenda was too soon, no need to rush this
decision.
2. Staff was directed to get feedback from the families and users of the building, possibly using
a survey, open house or other method of quantifying responses.
3. Staff was directed to come back with a range of options for the building, and to work to find
new office space for the lower level city offices and non-profits.
STAFF ACTION TO BE TAKEN:
1. Create a report on who else is using fingerprint readers and what the reaction to them has
been, what feedback they have on their use.
2. We intend to create a general survey instrument and use Open City Hall to gather some
general reaction feedback, then
3. Hold some Open Houses on the various security measure options, then
4. Use that feedback to craft a more specific survey that will be sent to parents and building
tenants about those options and the questions raised in the general survey and the open
houses.
5. Bring that information back to Council for direction later in the summer.
P29
II.
Yellow Brick Building
219 North Garmisch
Aspen, CO 81611
Access Control, CCTV, Security Intercom
Section-3:
1of 2
DESCRIPTION / LOCATIONMANUFACTURER/QUANTITYCOSTTOTAL
Maglocks 15 $422.76$6,341.40
Software and Control Panels 2 $8,000.00$16,000.00
Keypads 13 $659.00$8,567.00
Exit Buttons 15 $155.00$2,325.00
Biometric Readers 2 $1,990.00$3,980.00
Power Relay Modules 8 $45.00$360.00
Power Supplies & Backup Batteries6 $345.00$2,070.00
Network Connection Card 1 $495.00$495.00
Conduit/Raceway 1 $1,200.00$1,200.00
Wiring Labor 38 $66.00$2,508.00
Installation Labor 45 $86.00$3,870.00
Total$47,716.40
IP Cameras 7 Exterior & 2 Interior
Exterior Camera & Mount 7 $1,108.00$7,756.00
Interior Dome Cameras 4 $890.00$3,560.00
Camera Licensing 11 $135.00$1,485.00
PC with Monitor 1 $2,200.00$2,200.00
Network Video Recorder- 6 Terabyte1 $6,950.00$6,950.00
Software 1 $310.00$310.00
System Rack with UPS and Ventilation1 $7,494.85$7,494.85
Conduit/Raceway 1 $750.00$750.00
Wiring Labor 20 $66.00$1,320.00
Installation Labor 30 $86.00$2,580.00
Total$34,405.85
Security System Wireless
Door Contacts 30 $63.80$1,914.00
Panic Buttons 16 $84.20$1,347.20
Keypads 3 $159.60$478.80
Network Alarm Panel 1 $547.60$547.60
Wireless Receivers 2 $180.00$360.00
Wiring Labor 4 $60.00$240.00
Installation Labor 42 $86.00$3,612.00
Total$8,499.60
Intercom System
Base Stations 1 $824.76$824.76
Room Phone/Intercom 16 $258.86$4,141.76
Exterior Intercom 2 $345.22$690.44
Central Control Unit 1 $4,931.94$4,931.94
Power Supplies & Relays 2 $925.34$1,850.68
Conduit/Raceway 1 $1,200.00$1,200.00
Wiring Labor 19 $60.00$1,140.00
Installation Labor 18 $86.00$1,548.00
Total$16,327.58
Access Control for 15 Doors
P30
II.
Yellow Brick Building
219 North Garmisch
Aspen, CO 81611
Access Control, CCTV, Security Intercom
Section-3:
2of 2
SYSTEM INSTALLATION TOTALS
$90,131.43
-$17,932.47
$72,198.96
$0.00
$16,818.00
$2,647.50
$91,664.46
Payment Schedule:
1. 50 percent due at signing $45,832.23
2. 25 percent due at completion of pre-wire $22,916.12
3. 25 percent due upon completion $22,916.12
Date:3/1/2013
NOTE: Prices valid for 30 days from proposal date.
NOTE: This proposal is based upon utilizing exisitng network and assumes that adequate bandwidth and ports are
availible. Assistance from the City of Aspen IT Department may be necessary for network setup.
NOTE: Some wire runs may require raceway or conduit that will be exposed, and not painted.
NOTE: Drawings are for representation purposes only and do not depict exact locations. Exact locations to be decided
upon acceptance and design walk through.
NOTE: Any pre-wire drops that are not "trimmed out" will be left outside the wall or curled up as deemed appropriate.
If client wishes us to bury the wires or cap the wires it will be a time and material adjustment at current labor fees.
Please advise at time of pre-wire.
Equipment Cost:
Tax Exempt
Labor:
Prewire:
Total System Pre-wire and Trimout
Discount on Equipment:
Discounted Equipment Cost:
P31
II.
P32
II.
P33
II.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM : Garrett Sabourin, PE, Project Manager
THRU: Tyler Christoff, PE, Senior Project Manager
Trish Aragon, PE, City Engineer
DATE OF MEMO: August 28, 2013
MEETING DATE: September 03, 2013
RE: Neale Avenue Improvements Project: Preferred Alternative
____
SUMMARY: Staff seeks Council input regarding the Neale Avenue Improvements Project conceptual
design. Staff recommends proceeding to 30% design of construction plans with the preferred
conceptual design.
BACKGROUND: The City of Aspen contracted with DHM Design Corporation and JR
Engineering to provide engineering, landscape architecture, and planning services for the Neale
Avenue Improvements Project Corridor and surrounding neighborhood. The design team inventoried
existing facilities, surveyed the corridor, completed a traffic analysis, and solicited input from the
citizens in order to produce a refined conceptual alternative.
This project has utilized design services to develop pedestrian crossings, streetscape elements,
drainage improvements, and refinement of the park interface and adjacent trailhead. Once base data
was obtained Engineering and Parks staff worked with our consultant team to draft two alternative
conceptual designs for the corridor. These alternatives represented the ideals of the projects original
goals. Each alternative provided a compromise between expense and infrastructure investment. Staff
solicited feedback on these two alternatives during three (3) public meetings and a third party run
website: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/community-Relations/Open-City-Hall/
Staff’s public outreach has included:
1 project Open House meeting, occurring May 14th 5-7pm in Rio Grande Meeting
Room.
2 project Open House meetings, occurring June 10th 11-1pm and June 11th 4-6pm
adjacent to Herron Park.
Event invitation flyers mailed to surrounding community requesting attendance at the
open house meetings
Conceptual exhibit, requesting online input, mounted adjacent to Herron Park and Neale
Avenue on June 25th.
P35
III.
Online feedback using “Open City Hall” run by a third party administrator Peak
Democracy
Public preferred conceptual design presented to Open Space and Trails Board at August
22nd meeting.
DISCUSSION:
Within the context of this project the following project goals have been identified: (See Attachment
B)
1) Traffic Calming – Improve safety and comfort of pedestrians and cyclists by reducing vehicular
speeds, while maintaining street function
2) Pedestrian Safety – Improve safety at the pedestrian and traffic interface along the Neale Avenue
Improvement Corridor
3) Park/Roadway Interface – Improve and define character and function of east edge of Herron Park
4) Bicycles – Integrate bicycles into the street system by extending the City of Aspen Bikeway Plan
5) Neighborhood Connections – Update and enhance pedestrian and cyclist connections to
surrounding neighborhoods and trail systems
6) Stormwater – Update drainage infrastructure, rectify existing drainage issues, and improve water
quality between Neale Ave and the Roaring Fork River
The design team divided the corridor into 5 areas of distinct character which are in need of
improvements to meet the project goals. Each zone was matched with a design solution that addressed
the specific needs of the area while maintaining a cohesive treatment for the entire corridor.
The following are areas within the corridor identified to meet the project’s goals.
(See Attachments C & D)
1)TRAILHEAD
Opportunities: Develop cohesive park entry with enlarged trailhead, wayfinding, pedestrian crossing,
permanent enclosure for comfort station.
Design Improvements: Crosswalk and Rio Grande trail alignment shifted south to improve
pedestrian/vehicular visibility and provide increased sight distances. Pedestrian crossing at trailhead
terminus to be raised crossing constructed with a contrasting material to improve motorists awareness,
reduce traffic speeds, and add comfort to pedestrian experience. Stone monuments, trails maps, and
wayfinding define trail terminus and guide pedestrians to enlarged trailhead and crossing location.
Permanent comfort station enclosure to provide screening for Park users and neighbors. Bicycle
parking to capture existing Park and Trail users.
Discussion: The Engineering and Parks Departments have seen an opportunity for cost savings by
concurrently addressing needs associated with updating the eastern terminus of the Rio Grande
P36
III.
Trailhead. Staff has worked collaboratively to establish a functional trailhead while ensuring the
project goals and community desires are achieved.
2) PARKING LOT / PARK INTERFACE
Opportunities: Improve aging park edge and encourage safe pedestrian pathways. Improve
stormwater management in the parking, and trailhead areas. Provide additional separation to alleviate
pedestrian/vehicular conflict at roadway edge.
Design Improvements: Permeable paving and/or positive grading to promote infiltration and
conveyance. Construct sidewalk in front of parking area to shift pedestrian circulation away from
Neale Avenue. Replace deteriorating timber wall with new planting and stone steps.
3)& 4) ROADWAY
Opportunities: Implement traffic calming features, improve drainage patterns, reduce lane widths to
promote traffic calming, and crossing distance.
Design Improvements: Reduced traffic lane width to promote traffic calming and pedestrian safety.
Pedestrian activated crossing signal and advanced warning signage to improve driver awareness of
crossing. Fencing and tree plantings along east edge of roadway to deter errant pedestrian crossing.
Extend City of Aspen shared lane markings to Rio Grande trailhead to promote bicycle connectivity.
5) PROCKTER / STORMWATER
Opportunities: Improve aging drainage infrastructure to more effectively remove sediment from
storm flows, improve outfall area on Prockter Open Space, and water quality treatment prior to
entering river. Limit impacts to floodway and Open Space. Provide preferred pedestrian path to
defined crossing area.
Design Improvements: Water quality vault adjacent to Prockter Open Space outfall area, upgraded
storm sewer pipe and inlets to address low outfall elevations and aging infrastructure, and increased
channel/detention area to improve storm water conveyance and promote improved water quality and
infiltration prior to Rio Grande River.
P37
III.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
Design Funding Allocated
Traffic Calming and Pedestrian fund (Acct# 000.15.94512) $ 20,000.00
Stormwater Improvement fund (Acct# 160.94.94505) $ 61,135.00
Total $ 81,135.00
Current Expenditures
Neale Avenue Improvements Project
(Survey, Planning, Design, Public Process and Project Management) $ 28,663.89
Future Expenditures
Construction Funding – 2014 (20% Contingency)
Parks and Open Space $120,000.00
Stormwater $120,000.00
Engineering $160,000.00
Total $400,000.00
Total Proposed Expenditures 2014 $396,000.00
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
Attachment A: Existing Conditions Images
Attachment B: Site Analysis Opportunities
Attachment C: Project Area and Goals
Attachment D: Preferred Conceptual Design
P38
III.
P39III.
P40III.
P41III.
P4
2
II
I
.