Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Works Facility topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Herriman staff present schematic for new public works facility with first-phase cost estimate of roughly $18.4 million
Summary
Staff presented a two‑phase public works facility plan centered at Butterfield Park: Sequence 1 (administration ~18,000 sq ft and fleet ~10,000 sq ft) has an estimated construction cost of about $13 million and total with contingencies/soft costs around $18.4 million; Sequence 2 is estimated at $10–15 million. Council asked to consider CIP inclusion and staged construction.
Justin, public works staff, presented a schematic needs assessment and two‑sequence plan to expand and consolidate the city’s public works functions at Butterfield Park. He said sequence 1 would include an administration building of roughly 18,000 gross square feet and a fleet building of about 10,000 square feet, with total construction estimated at about $13,000,000; contingencies and inflation pushed the figure to roughly $17,000,000 and, after soft costs (architecture, furniture, IT, testing), the total for sequence 1 was presented as approximately $18,400,000.
Sequence 2 — which would include additional shop/storage bays, a vehicle wash bay, a larger salt storage area, and a larger fuel island — was presented with construction costs around $10,000,000 and an expected escalation to about $15,000,000 when projected out toward 2030. Justin said the two‑sequence approach is intended to limit upfront spending while preserving capacity for future expansion.
Staff explained site logistics: the proposed footprint is about 7.5 acres, grading and retaining walls would be necessary because of slope, and relocating fleet operations would free bays in existing facilities and improve circulation for large vehicles. The schematic includes locker rooms, training and conference spaces, storage mezzanines, heavy maintenance bays with an overhead crane, and expanded secure material storage to reduce vandalism and theft.
Councilmembers praised the methodical needs analysis and asked questions about phasing and how long right‑of‑way and design work might take. One councilmember stressed concern about long useful-life assumptions and the risk of overbuilding; staff said they intentionally scaled back from an earlier, larger design to keep near‑term costs more conservative and allow future growth opportunities.
No formal decision or vote was taken; staff were asked to continue refining cost estimates, consider CIP timing, and coordinate with budget staff for potential inclusion in future capital programming.
