Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Works Facility topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council reviews $18 million schematic for new public works campus; staff to consider phasing in CIP
Summary
Staff presented a public works facility needs assessment proposing a two-sequence plan (administration + fleet first) with Sequence 1 construction estimated at about $13 million and a Sequence 1 total of roughly $18.4 million after contingencies and soft costs; council discussed phasing, cost per square foot and CIP timing.
Herriman — City staff presented a schematic needs assessment and site plan for a consolidated Public Works campus at Butterfield Park and outlined estimated costs, phasing and operational benefits.
Justin (Speaker 7) said the design team used previous GSBS baselines and on-site visits to comparable facilities to define programmatic needs. The plan separates work into two sequences: Sequence 1 includes an administration building (roughly 18,000 sq ft combined program area) and a fleet building (about 10,000 sq ft). Justin said Sequence 1 construction costs are roughly $13,000,000; after contingencies, inflation allowances and soft costs (architectural/engineering, FFE, IT and testing) the Sequence 1 total pushes to about $18,400,000.
“For the first sequence, is around 13,000,000, and then with those contingencies, were pushing around 17,000,000. And then when you look into the soft cost... that brings the total up to about 18,400,000,” Justin said in the presentation.
Sequence 2 (shops, wash bay, material storage, fuel island and an impound yard) was estimated at about $10,000,000 construction and approximately $15,000,000 with contingencies and soft costs, with target implementation out toward 2030 depending on funding and CIP timing.
Council members asked about the decision to downsize from prior conceptual drawings, the tradeoffs of building more now versus phasing over years, and whether right-of-way or grading challenges would affect sequencing. Staff said the reduced footprint reflects a 10–15 year planning horizon and that building in phases preserves flexibility while limiting near-term expenditures. Staff also noted operational benefits: consolidating storage from currently scattered sites, secure material yards to reduce vandalism and safer fleet access from a lower elevation on site.
Next steps: staff requested direction to include the Sequence 1 project in the capital improvement plan and to coordinate timing with finance staff; council signaled broad support for the schematic and asked staff to refine cost estimates and phasing scenarios for CIP consideration.
