Pueblo West board weighs $2.3 million Fire Station 1 renovation, asks for alternatives and architect briefing

Fire Chief Brian Caserta and District Manager Christian J. Hine revisited plans to renovate Pueblo West’s Fire Station 1, saying the project is intended to correct safety problems with sleeping quarters and to upgrade the building to current commercial and life‑safety codes.

Caserta described the station as originally built in 1997 without living quarters and said the renovation would “improve the living conditions, the safety conditions for the firefighters staying there,” while keeping existing office space where possible. Hine provided a financial recap, saying the total design fees now under consideration amount to roughly $280,000 when combined with prior work the district has paid for. Hine said the construction estimate for the 4,104 square‑foot remodel is in the range of about $2.09 million to $2.29 million and that the biggest cost drivers are “general conditions” and the building systems—HVAC, electrical and plumbing.

Board members probed the numbers and asked why costs were substantially higher than earlier estimates. Hine explained the earlier ($80,000) design work did not produce a final package suitable for construction and that a revised design, additional phasing work and code‑driven upgrades raised the new fee proposal. He noted the International Existing Building Code (IEBC) and ADA/code triggers can require more extensive upgrades when renovations exceed certain thresholds.

Some directors suggested an alternative: building an ancillary metal structure on site to add sleeping quarters and support spaces at lower cost, conserving the existing building for offices and day‑use functions. Proponents of that approach argued a separate, pre‑engineered building could add usable square footage at a substantially lower price. Staff warned that pursuing a different design path would mean going “back to the drawing board,” abandoning some design work already paid for, and could delay resolving an identified safety issue.

Rather than approve a contract tonight, the board asked staff to return with a focused cost comparison that quantifies: (a) the remodeling option as presented (including design and contingency), and (b) a scenario that uses an ancillary building plus a smaller scope of in‑building work to meet safety requirements. The board also asked to invite the project architect to the next meeting to explain code thresholds, permit assumptions and line‑item cost drivers so directors could make an informed choice.

Next steps: staff will produce a revised cost analysis and ask the architect to attend the next meeting to explain options and code implications; no construction contract or design authorization was adopted at this meeting.