Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Works Facility topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public Works director outlines $28 million facility plan, committee discusses phasing to cut cost to ~$19–20M
Summary
The Public Works director told the committee the full design of a consolidated Public Works facility would cost about $28 million; staff proposed four alternate phasing packages to reduce near-term cost to the $19–20 million range and recommended preserving flex space for future growth.
The Public Works director updated the Public Works Committee on plans for a consolidated Public Works facility, saying the full design package would cost about $28,000,000 and that the city lacks that funding now.
The director said staff and the project architects had prepared a criteria package and were ready to advertise for a design‑build general contractor. He described the current plan as built to serve the department for decades and recommended a phased approach so the city would not underbuild and face repeated retrofits later.
Why it matters: the building would centralize Public Works operations, equipment and some administrative functions (including Water and certain engineering functions), and the design choices now will determine whether the city needs costly add‑ons in five to ten years.
The director said staff had asked the consultant for four alternate packages to reduce up‑front costs: 1) defer or reduce certain exterior mounting and landscaping items that might be cost‑shared with neighbors; 2) delay paint and flooring finishes or supply them via in‑house work or other contract vehicles; 3) leave parts of the recreation/parks and development administrative areas unfinished now (finish half for current staffing and defer the rest to phase 2); and 4) defer two ancillary buildings to phase 2 and only build an aggregate base for their future paving now. Those alternate packages, staff said, would move the budget closer to $19,000,000.
Staff emphasized that the design retains the building footprint now so later additions can be attached without re‑building core systems: “We’re trying to build the footprint that we know we’ll need and finish interiors in phases,” the director said. He also asked the council to consider codifying a phasing plan in ordinance so future councils would be guided by the master plan.
Committee members asked where new equipment would be stored if the Holman facility is removed from service. The director said Holman had been appraised at about $500,000–$600,000 and that the city may need to continue using Holman or other satellite storage to avoid constantly rotating equipment between sites. He said it might be necessary to keep the current front‑end loader as well as purchase a new one to meet storage and operational needs.
Staff said the project team will prepare renderings and financing information and expects to present slides and updated numbers at the next meeting. Current high‑level cost estimates in staff files range across a series of older studies; the director noted the $15 million figure appearing in some past materials was outdated and that current design work produced much higher estimates.
Ending: Staff said they expected to return with drawings and more precise cost and financing options next month so the committee and council can consider whether to include an initial phase in the upcoming budget.
