Long and Associates outlines design options, costs for Hillsborough County Fire Station No. 11 replacement

Long and Associates, the architecture and engineering firm responding to RPS 25-00191, presented three design and phasing options for a replacement of Hillsborough County Fire Station No. 11 in Brandon and answered questions about costs, site constraints and delivery methods.

The presentation opened with Lex Long, president of Long and Associates, saying, “when you surround yourself with the right people, great things happen,” and describing the team, commitments to small/minority consultants and prior work on prototype stations. Long said the firm is “committing at least 10% of our fees to these particular firms” and noted Long and Associates is registered as an SBE with the City of St. Petersburg and Hillsborough County Schools.

The firm summarized the project scope described in the county RFP: a phased replacement that keeps the station operational during construction, renovation of the existing apparatus bay, and a new single-story living quarters building. Long and Associates said the existing station dates to about 1979, does not meet current structural wind-load, accessibility and systems standards, and is a candidate for full replacement based on their existing building assessment.

In the technical portion of the presentation, Michael Knight and the civil team described site constraints including an older neighborhood with limited stormwater infrastructure, a drainage basin that funnels runoff toward the site and a proposed deep, walled stormwater pond. The presenters noted a right-of-way dedication from an adjacent parcel that creates a jog in the property line and identified an aging on-site lift station and older potable water service that would likely need upgrades.

Long and Associates showed three layout options modeled from an existing prototype station: two options that retain the existing apparatus bay while adding new living quarters (different orientations) and a third option that replaces both apparatus bay and living quarters with a fully new integrated station built to current codes. The firm emphasized phasing that would allow operations to continue and explained that some options would require temporary canopy structures and periods when the apparatus bay could not be used.

On costs and schedule the firm presented a preliminary construction estimate of about $4,600,000 for the building, roughly $1,000,000 for sitework and a total budget range they expect to be in the $5.4–$5.9 million range. They said they included an approximate 8% contingency (on the order of $400,000) and that site permitting is on the critical path for schedule. The presenters said they have already invested about $35,000 in the feasibility study and proposed crediting that work into the project fee.

During questions, Long and Associates discussed material and systems preferences they see in recent public projects, including transitioning toward luxury vinyl tile (LVT) rather than polished concrete for durability, increased use of tile and phenolic partitions in wet spaces, and specifying solid-surface casework where budgets allow. They also said newer prototypes have used smaller “micro” chillers rather than heavy commercial units. On delivery method, the firm expressed a preference for construction management at-risk (CMAR), saying early contractor involvement can compress delivery and reduce adversarial change-order risk; they also said a compressed schedule on the order of months (they cited a four-month compressed period as an achievable target in some phases) is possible with early coordination.

No procurement decision or vote was recorded during the presentation; after the Q&A the presenters closed and Long and Associates took questions from committee staff. The presentation materials included site plans, three test-fit layouts, cost-range estimates and references to previous county and municipal stations the firm designed.

The committee heard detailed clarifications about stormwater management, required 20-foot buffers on the north and east sides of the property, utility upgrades (lift station and potable water service), and phasing constraints that could require temporary loss of the apparatus bay for structural work in some options. Presenters repeatedly stressed that site permitting and agency approvals will be critical steps before construction can begin.