Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPS 2018-02-05 Item 2A - Public Safety Plan - Fire Station 51 Schematic DesignC �z City of Tukwila a Allan Ekberg, Mayor INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM TO: Public Safety Committee FROM: Rachel Bianchi CC: Mayor Ekberg DATE: January 30, 2018 SUBJECT: Fire Station 51 Schematic Design and Updated Fire Station Budget ISSUE The City has completed Schematic Design on Fire Station 51. As the Council's Program Management Quality Assurance (PMQA) Consultant has indicated, the end of Schematic Design provides the owner with the first "real" budget number for the project. Even with value engineering, rejecting some program elements and critically reviewing the schematic design, costs for the fire station projects have increased since the last budget was shared with the Council in May of 2016. However, staff continues to recommend moving forward to the next stage, design development. BACKGROUND After the passage of the voter -approved Public Safety Bond in November of 2016, the City initiated the fire stations projects. Because the site for Fire Station 51 was previously determined, the City began design on this station immediately while doing the necessary analysis to determine potential locations for the other two stations, 52 and 54. The fire stations have gone through the programming stage to determine the critical needs of the building, necessary adjacencies and equipment to be housed in the facility. At the end of the programming phase, an updated budget was shared with the Council that estimated an $8.4 million gap between the Public Safety Bond and what was thought to be the overall budget for all three fire stations. After programming, Lydig Construction was brought on board to serve as the project's General Contractor/Construction Manager (GC/CM). Having a GC/CM early on allows the project team to have well-informed, real-time access to project estimators, updated costs of materials and a better overall understanding of the costs associated with construction. Additionally, now that sites for the other two stations have been determined, the City has much-needed information including budget impacts associated with site conditions. During the schematic design phase some of the programming square footage for Fire Station 51 grew, making the building approximately 1,500 square feet larger than contemplated in the programming phase. There are three key reasons for this growth in square footage: • Both apparatus bays able to accommodate the ladder truck -- while only one bay is needed to be large enough to accommodate the ladder truck, the geometry of the building makes it more functional to have both bays the same length. There would be minimal financial savings from shortening one of the bays, which would create more corners, which are costly. • Planning for future growth — one of the key design principles of this effort was to plan the station in a way that could be expanded in the future, which is accomplished by identifying where the third bay and additional bunks and restrooms would be constructed. However, this also meant future -proofing some of the other spaces, such as gear storage, etc. for future growth as their locations in the building would not allow for future growth. 1 2 INFORMATIONAL MEMO Page 2 • Inclusion of air locks — another key principle of the design effort was to prioritize firefighter safety throughout the building and focusing on clearly separating the "hot, or contaminated" and "cold, or uncontaminated" areas of the building. This was accomplished in schematic design with air locks that go between the living quarters and apparatus bays, but they also required additional square footage not included in the programming effort. With schematic design complete, two separate cost estimating efforts for Fire Station 51 occurred, one under the direction of the City's architects at Weinstein A+U and one through Lydig Construction. This is standard practice to arrive at a final cost estimate for schematic design and the two estimates are reconciled to the satisfaction of all parties. The estimators then took the costs identified for Fire Station 51 and applied them to Fire Stations 52 and 54, based on square footage, as well as what is known about the specific sites. Market conditions cost escalation was also included for Fire Stations 52 and 54. Both Fire Stations 52 and 54 sites have potentially challenging site conditions and therefore the budget is carrying higher development costs for those sites than for Fire Station 51. The initial cost estimate for all three fire stations came in at more than $20.4 million above the budget identified in the Public Safety Bond. The program management consultant, design team and GC/CM initiated a value engineering effort to reduce costs and found an additional $400,000 in savings on the Fire Station 51 project. It is expected that when Fire Stations 52 and 54 get to the end of their schematic design phases there would be additional value engineering efforts associated with both of those buildings. In addition, the design team looked at what a minimal station design (with the smallest footprint possible, with the current program elements) would look like for Fire Station 51 and what the potential cost savings would be should the City chose to scale down accordingly. However, the minimal station design saved less than $500,000 in construction costs and included two detrimental flaws: • No ability to expand the building, conflicting with one of the major design principles of the overall program • Unacceptable operational deficiencies, including a lack of area for firefighters to drill on the site Because of the relatively small savings associated with the minimal station design and the significant unacceptable tradeoffs, the entire project team endorses moving forward to design development with the original design of Fire Station 51. This original design does not include some of the alternates identified early on, such as the roof extension for the future build out, on- site fueling or the additional parking spaces. The City chose to use the GC/CM method of delivery because it provides us with better certainty throughout the project. Lydig has a strong track record of accurate schematic design estimates, historically coming in at one to three percent of the final construction budget. Had the City gone the traditional design bid build method, the budget realities would not surface until construction bids were in, leaving the City with little time to determine a course of action moving forward. The entire project team understands the gravity of the $20.4 million gap between what was in the voter -approved Public Safety Bond and the current cost estimates for the three fire stations. It is also understood that this does not reflect the gap in the other equally important Public Safety Plan projects and that difficult decisions will need to be made. The City Council Finance Committee is analyzing alternatives to closing the Public Safety Plan funding gap and will be W:12G18 Info Memos\FDschematic.doc INFORMATIONAL MEMO Page 3 providing recommendations to the full Council for deliberation and determination later this spring. RECOMMENDATION Staff is seeking committee approval to forward this issue to the February 12, 2018 Committee of the Whole meeting for consensus that the City continue into the Design Development phase for Fire Station 51. Despite the budget challenges, the need for modern, safe fire stations remains very real, for the broader community and for the fire fighters that work in these facilities. Staff recommends moving forward with Fire Station 51 while the Finance Committee continues its work to identify strategies for closing the financial gap on the Public Safety Plan. The Council will continue to have multiple decision points in the future that provide "off ramps" if so desired. ATTACHMENT - Fire Station 51 design -Fire Station 51 site plan - Updated fire station budget -Public Safety Plan schedule W:12018 Info Memos\FDschematic.doc 3 4 7-0 3/4" 20'-71 /4" LINE OF ROOF ABV LINE OF F ENCLOSURE 11 1/4' 165'-8 3/4" OVERALL M 0 M 16-11 1/2" ALTERNATE 6 44'-91 /2" (1) BOLLAR 14'-1 1/2" 5'-9" 14'-1 1/2" BRACEFRAME-i 33 ACK STOR BY OWNER oFD STOR 138 HOSE RACK (F010) 1 CASCADE FILL STATION (FOIC) CORRIDOR 135 O m SCBA 137 GBOARD ON WALL FOR SCBA PARTS 1 1 WORK SHOP BENC 134 U EMS 132 CORRIDOR 131 0 —BATTERY CHARGING BATSTTT ��V SPRINKLER MECH 133 BRACE FRAME 1 o_ oFD c 1 0 i� ARCHITECTURAL SCREEN L 1 00/ ALTERNATE 1: SEE PRICING ALTS FOR DESCRIPTION OF BASE BID 0-1 Weinstein A+U .♦ — — — 0 TRENCH DRAIN ►i- SEE MECH PROVIDE STR PING AT APP BAY. LINE LOC IONS TO BE MARKED 0 SITE W/ TFD 111 r❑ I BRACE FRAME, TYP_; SEE STRUCT 1 DECON 126 FD 0 AIRLOCK DECON oFD WASH 124 WC U 125 oFD n� COMM 127 1 41 GEAR WASH 128 IANGING BAR EXTRACTOR TDQJ ALL -MTD BUNKER GEAR LOCKERS GEAR STOR 129 oF'D MOVABLE BUNKER GEAR LOCKERS °FD OPEN MTL SHELVING STATION OFFICE 107 ♦♦ .. BOOT WASH AIRLO 123 RECEIV 122 STOR r -RACK F010 SHA N/IJA oFD 117 W IIS D SII FUTUREII o ATH F 115 leo ADA BATH PFD 113 BATH 111 MAP WALL— 103'-11 1/2" BUNK 121 121A BUNK 120 120A SHIFT LOCKERS, TYP. CORRIDOR 119 118A 116A 114A 112A RECESSED WALK -OFF MAT BUILT -I rf DESK, BUNK 116 BUNK 114 CAP BUNK 112 ALTERNATE 2: SEE PRICING ALTS FOR DESCRIPTION OF BASE BID ALTERNATE 7: SEE PRICING ALTS FOR DESCRIPTION OF DEDUCTIVE ALT FUEL TERMINAL BUILDING PLAN: SD SCHEME 1/8" = 1'-0" REMOTE FUEL DISPENSING STATION (4) BOLLARDS TYP 8'-0" TALL CMU ENCLOSURE 11 1/4" 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • - - 4 COURTYARD (OPEN TO ABOVE) LINE OF OVERHANG ABV co co BBQ CORRIDOR 103 FULL HTf BUILT-IN STOR BUILT-IN DESK ALTSALT.1 F �m-�-'--A #1111". Aag WALL -MTD MIRROR PHYS TRAIN 106 WATER BOTTLE FILL STATION DW 108 WHITE BOARD— GREAT ROOM 104 4 SHIFT LOCKERS�U UNDERCOUNTER __ ALTERNATE 6 & 11 0 D D D LINE OF OVERHANG ABV FUTURE DETOX p I PLUMBED INDIVIDUAL FOOD_ COFFEE BAR LOCKERS, 4 HIGH _=0= TV, F010 J ELEC 105 GAS METER TRANS FORMER ALTS NATE 7: SEE PRICING ALTS FOR —DESCRIPTION OF DEDUCTIVE ALTERNATE o o (7) REMOVABLE BOLLARDS W/ 4"D FOR VEHICLE IMPACT ` .o PROTECTION PER IFC 2015 SEC 312 ARCHITECTURAL SCREEN W/ ELECTRIC SECURITY GATE 0 1T-5 ALTERNATE 9: SEE PRICING ALTS FOR DESCRIPTION OF ADDITIVE ALTERNATE Tukwila Fire Station 51 1 100% Schematic Design 1 12/6/2017 / / / / / / / / / / / / // o /// 230'-3 3/4" /. 8'H SECURITY FENCE TYP AT NORTH, WEST & SOUTH SIDES Ank Ad& Alk link 42"W LOCKABLE ATE \ / ALTERNATE 7: SEE PRICING ALTS FOR DESCRIPTION OF DEDUCTIVE ALT ATE 2: SEE PRICING ALTS SCRIPTION OF BASE BID EXTERIOR COVERED STORAGE (UNCONDITIONED) EXTERIOR COVERED STORAGE (UNCONDITIONED) i ALTERNATE 7: SEE PRICING ALTS FOR DESCRIPTION OF DEDUCTIVE ALTERNATE ORT SPACE; CONDITIONEI CH PLATFORI 2 -STORIES) APPARATUS BAY (DOUBLE -HEIGHT) LIVING QUARTERS & SUPPORT SPACES (SINGLE -STORY) \ ALTERNATE 9: SEE PRICING ALTS FOR DESCRIPTION OF ADDITIVE ALTERNATE \I N / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /I �I II II II I I I I I 7 0'-0" SIDE YARD SETBACK PER 18.41.090B FRONT APRON w S\ ADJUSTED ROW SHOWN HATCHED 0'-0" SIDE A PER 18 41.090 33 � .- 7 / 7 7 7 7 ZONE: MUO (MIXED USE OFFICE) WITH TSO (TUKWILA SOUTH OVERLAY DISTRICT) 1 \ ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN / / EG 32.00 SOU1NGENDER PKwy 4T-0„ A002) SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" GENERAL NOTES 1 SEE CIVIL PLANS FOR UTILITIES, PAVING & GRADING 2 SEE LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR PLANTINGS & SITE FURNISHINGS PROPERTY LINE EXISTING CONTOURS NEW CONTOURS SECURITY FENCE Rev Date Issue Tukwila Fire Station 51 Project No. 17001 Weinstein A+U Architects + Urban Designers, LLC 2200 Western Ave Seattle, WA 98121 T 206 443 8606 F 206 443 1218 www.weinsteinau.com © 2017 Weinstein A+U - These documents have been prepared specifically for the above named project. They are not suitable for use on other projects or in other locations without the approval and participation of the Architect. PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Issue 100% Schematic Design Date 12/6/2017 Sheet Title ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN Sheet A002 ARCHITECTS + URBAN DESIGNERS z W V1 z PROJECT COSTS CITY OF TUKWILA Public Safety Plan Fire Stations - 51, 52, 54 Schematic Design Budget Summary (HIGH) YOE $ (in thousands) 1/30/2018 v^,„,�� • I Project Category F551 1 9,426 sf FS 52 1 15,068 sf Project Category F551 17,950 sf FS 52 6,567 sf FS 54 8,228 sf TOTAL 32,745 sf A/E Services (both design & CA) 731 356 464 1,551 Land Acquisition - 653 862 1,515 Permits/Fees 255 89 116 460 Construction (pre -con, const, tax) 7,809 3,278 4,273 15,360 Construction Related Costs (incl bond) 1,047 438 551 2,036 PM Services (incl other prof Svcs) 460 297 397 1,154 Contingency (incl Construction & Proj) 1,145 546 665 2,356 TOTAL $ 11,446 $ 5,657 $ 7,329 $ 24,432 1 The main fire station was originally identified as F551, but has been changed to FS52 in the revised estimate. • I Project Category F551 1 9,426 sf FS 52 1 15,068 sf FS 54 9,287 sf TOTAL 33,781 sf FUNDING GAP A/E Services (both design & CA) 635 1,052 626 2,314 763 Land Acquisition 653 - 862 1,516 1 Permits/Fees 166 301 164 631 172 Construction (pre -con, const, tax) 6,324 9,547 6,233 22,105 6,744 Construction Related Costs (incl bond) 657 1,184 709 2,550 514 PM Services (incl other prof Svcs) 300 576 305 1,181 28 Contingency (incl Construction & Pro)) 749 1,094 765 2,608 252 TOTAL $ 9,486 $ 13,755 $ 9,665 $ 32,906 $ 8,474 1 The main fire station was originally identified as F551, but has been changed to FS52 in the revised estimate. 2:\Council Agenda Items\Communications\DoNOTDelete\PSP Funding and Costs - Fite Stations 012218_JK.XLSX, 1.22.18 -HIGH 9 • I Project Category FS51 1 11,933 sf FS 52 1 15,068 sf FS 54 11933 sf TOTAL 38,934 sf FUNDING GAP A/E Services (both design & CA) 899 1,244 1,003 3,146 1,595 Land Acquisition - - 854 854 (661) Permits/Fees 234 353 262 849 390 Construction (pre -con, const, tax) 8,956 12,677 9,935 31,568 16,208 Construction Related Costs (incl bond) 931 1,398 1,039 3,367 1,331 PM Services (incl other prof svcs) 426 687 476 1,589 435 Contingency (incl Construction & Proj) 1,062 1,294 1,185 3,541 1,185 TOTAL $ 12,509 ' $ 17,652 $ 14,753 $ 44,914 $ 20,482 2:\Council Agenda Items\Communications\DoNOTDelete\PSP Funding and Costs - Fite Stations 012218_JK.XLSX, 1.22.18 -HIGH 9 10 S 0 J TUKWILA PUBLIC SAFETY PLAN FACILITIES PLAN Project Schedule DECEMBER site selection program/site selection design and permitting bidding and construction move-ulIoccupancy completed • public outreach (A) Architect Contract Approval (6) Contractor Pre -Con Contract COUNCILMEMSER DECISIONS (D) Site Selection (0) Project Budget Changes (C) Contractor Construction Approval (F) Bond Sale #2 (G) GC/CM CPARB Stan Finish %Done 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 JFMAMJJASONDJFMAMJJASONDJ F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M AMJJASONDJFMAMJJASOND CITYISOJ KICK-OFF MTG 101Ds/1e taloses 100% ■ CITY VOTE 11100110 10431/19 100% 1111 BONO SALE 12/01/16 12131/19 190% ■ In PUBLIC OUTREACH • SITE SELECTON 01/01117 12131/21 32% + + JUSTICE CENTER 02/06/17 05/25120 10% Y 1 �4 ..� — — DG �: i 6_4._-4—_ ! 1 — i 1 _ r_ C ..--_....—, .. —,..- _. — a....—.. — � te r STATION 51 02124/17 09127/19 22% I 1 1 1 1 A P 13 1 l C STATION 52 02(20117 00105120 12% I 1 A 1 1 1 — r. I 1b 1 I J G STATION54 02/20/17 00100/20 1296 I 1 A 1 I 1 1 1 P C CITY SHOPS 02/20/17 04100/21 s% 1 1 I 1 r A. 1 1 1 1 G site selection program/site selection design and permitting bidding and construction move-ulIoccupancy completed • public outreach (A) Architect Contract Approval (6) Contractor Pre -Con Contract COUNCILMEMSER DECISIONS (D) Site Selection (0) Project Budget Changes (C) Contractor Construction Approval (F) Bond Sale #2 (G) GC/CM CPARB