West Linn project team recommends mid‑cut for new operations center after value‑engineering; estimated cost $45M

City staff and their design and construction partners updated the West Linn City Council on design choices, cost estimates and funding options for a proposed operations center intended to consolidate public‑works divisions.

"The bulk of the cost was in the site," Kim Larson of Skanska told the council, reporting a 100% design development construction estimate that produced a construction cost of $47,200,000. The firm said site preparation — including access road and challenging soils — drove much of the budget.

Skanska and the design team described a focused value‑engineering exercise that produced about $12,200,000 of potential credits or savings when ideas were aggregated, though the team cautioned some ideas have interdependencies. The presenters offered three development scenarios: a light cut (Scenario 1) with a projected overall development cost near $50.2 million; a medium or "stacked" option (Scenario 2) that compresses the program into two buildings and reduces estimated development cost to about $45 million; and a deep cut (Scenario 3) that removes the second storage building with a projected cost near $41 million.

"We feel that [Scenario 2] gives the city the most bang for the buck," the project team said, recommending Scenario 2 as the balance between program retention and cost containment. The team explained Scenario 2 maintains roughly 90% of the program by stacking administrative functions on top of the fleet maintenance building and by reducing paved area and retaining walls to lower site cost.

Councilors raised operational concerns about stacking office space over a maintenance shop, citing potential noise and fumes. Designers said acoustic engineering, mechanical ventilation and material selection can mitigate impacts; an acoustic engineer has been included in the design team. On geotechnical risk, staff said borings show basalt rock at the lower tier and unsuitable soils on the upper tier, and that previous construction activity (I‑205 work) moved large volumes of material, which drives uncertainty in site costs and the need for early site work to reduce risk.

Finance staff presented a refined funding scenario based on Scenario 2: a not‑to‑exceed project budget of $45 million (construction plus soft costs), which the team said would generate about $3.2 million in combined annual debt service across applicable funds under a 25‑year financing assumption. Staff proposed distributing debt service across five divisions (streets, storm, sewer, water, parks), and suggested a staff recommendation that streets take a larger share (30% of cost) with the remainder split among the other divisions (~17.5% each). Under the 30% streets share example, streets' annual debt service would be about $962,000 and the other divisions approximately $561,000 each; moving to a 35% share for streets would raise its annual share and reduce the others by roughly $19,000 annually.

Staff identified trade‑offs required by the funding plan: delaying certain capital projects (examples cited included large‑diameter pipe replacements and stormwater projects totaling millions of dollars) and modest reductions in parks capital spending as ways to preserve near‑term cash flow. They also presented schedule targets the team said are constrained by weather and procurement: a decision to move forward on Scenario 2 by mid‑November would help preserve a dry‑weather mobilization window and reduce escalation risk.

Councilors signaled they were unlikely to support Scenario 3 and asked staff to return with more detailed financial options, including potential revenue measures, fee alternatives, or other funding mechanisms so the council can weigh the $4–5 million program trade‑offs between Scenario 1 and Scenario 2. Staff said they can return to the council with these analyses at the Nov. 17 budget meeting and a special Nov. 18 session, and reiterated the project team is prepared to provide more detailed construction documents and early procurement packages to improve cost certainty.

Next steps: staff recommended pursuing Scenario 2, returning cost‑and‑funding alternatives for council review, and preparing land‑use materials and procurement packages to keep the project on a schedule that would allow dry‑weather site work next construction season.