Menu

Topics

Connect

Comments

Want to discuss? Please read our Commenting Policy first.

Report recommends replacing aging Peterborough police station with $47M facility at new location

Report recommends replacing aging Peterborough police station with $47M facility at new location. Mark Giunta reports – May 31, 2019

A consultant’s study says the preferred option for addressing spatial challenges at the Peterborough Police Service station is building a new $47-million facility at another location.

Story continues below advertisement

On Monday, city council will review a presentation from the Peterborough Police Services Board and Shoalts and Zaback Architects that outlines the study, which explored the facility’s space needs. A board report in 2011 stated the station was “beyond capacity,” and the architects were hired last July to review options for the service over the next 20 years.

The architect’s report offers five possibilities, and the preferred option is building a new station on a generic site (no specific location was given). The project is estimated to cost $46,991,550. (The study says all costs must be planned to increase by 3 per year beyond 2019).

A new police station at a new location could cost more than $47 million. Shoalts and Zaback Architects Ltd.

The report notes the existing building on Water Street opened in 1968 with 85 staff and was 19,600 square feet.

Story continues below advertisement

In 1985, a 10,000-square-foot second floor was added to accommodate 133 staff. The addition was intended to accommodate the service’s needs for the next 10 years.

The daily email you need for 's top news stories.

Further additions and renovations were made a decade ago. The service currently has 215 employees, and its staffing in 25 years is expected to be 236 to 285 employees while the city’s population will increase to 106,500, the report estimates.

WATCH: Study suggests Peterborough Police Service should adapt to city’s growing diversity

The report notes that the force’s current building has a number of deficiencies, such as insufficient space to accommodate an expanded station and all parking requirements. The building also does not meet current security standards and has stormwater management issues as well as no separation of public and private secure access.

Story continues below advertisement

Other deficiencies highlighted include:

  • A structure and systems that are not designed to post-disaster requirements
  • An emergency sprinkler system that does not cover the entire building
  • A building envelope that contains lower insulation levels compared to current requirements
  • Mechanical and electrical systems that are at capacity and have poor control
  • Poor/inadequate ventilation in areas such as detention, property storage and labs
  • Inadequate forensic lab facilities
  • Poor spatial organization and lack of support spaces
  • Poor interviewing facilities, inadequate staff facilities and lack of training facilities

The report says a new building would be the most functional, would allow ongoing police operations and would offer expansion potential.

The report also studied options to construct an addition and make renovations on the existing site, the cost of which was estimated at $50.2 million. Another option was to build a new station on the existing location for a cost of $51.1 million, however the report found the site is “too small to accommodate the requirements, and the work would interrupt service continuity.”

Story continues below advertisement

Another option would be to build a $39-million addition on the station and renovate another building.

“This is a viable option,” the report states.

The other option includes phased construction on a generic site at $47 million.

“This is also a viable option (and) provides the opportunity to spread out the financing,” the report states.

City council’s general committee meeting begins at 6 p.m. on Monday.

WATCH: Peterborough police might open a mini station

Advertisement

You are viewing an Accelerated Mobile Webpage.

View Original Article