HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Packet 10-20-2014 SpecialCITY OF PLYMOUTH
AGENDA
SPECIAL COUNCILMEETING
OCTOBER 20, 2014, 6:00 p.m.
PUBLIC WORKS MAINTENANCE FACILITY
14900 23RD AVENUE NORTH, PLYMOUTH
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. TOPICS
A. Public Works expansion and fuel management system replacement
3. ADJOURN
Special Council Meeting 1 of 1 October 20, 2014
Page 1
OERTEL ARCHITECTS
1795 SAINT CLAIR AVENUE, SAINT PAUL, MN 55105
TEL: 651/696-5186
DATE: May 19, 2014
FAX: 651/696-5188
RE: Plymouth Public Works Department Needs Assessment Study
Report
TO: Doran Cote, Plymouth Public Works Director
Executive Summary
This brief study was initiated based on a number of concerns relative to efficient operations at the
Public Works Maintenance campus, determining current and long term needs. This is partially
based on changes in public works operations and partially due to a lack of space for the current
staff and fleet size. One change in operations over recent years, for example, is the use ofbrine
for snow and ice operations. Concerning lack of space, the lunch room has been too small for the
current staff size and there is not enough storage space in the building to accommodate the entire
fleet without double and triple handling. The existing wash bay falls short in two ways: it can
only service one vehicle at a time and recent technological improvements in washing vehicles
would streamline operations with better results.
Potential improvements and adding more space to the facility were considered for the short term
and long term. The additional space needs that were identified during the process includes that
which is needed by the departments in order to meet ongoing operational goals: optimal service
levels, staff efficiency, safety concerns, staff satisfaction and related items.
Over a five month period of time, the study involved data gathering, analysis and the preparation
ofplanning options. A final proposed master plan (included in this report) provides what staff
and architect believe to be the best means of achieving the goals of this study.
The final master plan involves building in phases. The phasing is important in that the costs and
expansion plans can be staged over time, deferring some of the project costs while providing
space at the times deemed necessary.
With this Master Plan in hand, the city will also be aware that, long term, portions of this campus
are dedicated for the future additions. Other projects or items can be added to the campus, as
long as the areas noted are respected.
As an aside, I have been directly involved with the city departments since 1990, having worked
on what was then the new facility. After this, my firm designed the addition to this building in
2001 and, more recently, the salt building, which was constructed last year. I do have some
knowledge of the city's past history which, as historians would argue, help in understanding the
future.
Page 2
Within this report, the following is addressed or included:
Description ofProcess
Basis ofProposed Master Plan
Scope and Description ofMaster plan
Discussion of Vehicle Washing
Project costs
Proposed Master Plan
Program
Description ofProcess
Starting in late January of this year, meetings between the architect and staff of the Public Works
and Park departments were arranged to discuss current and long terms needs for the departments.
We collectively reviewed options for expansion and determined the best option that would serve
the City over the short and long term.
The first step of the process included three parts. First, based on current and projected
information provided by the city, a program was developed to determine the space, equipment
and other physical components that would be needed. A proprietary program was used (which
Oertel Architects has developed for this very purpose) to help facilitate the study. At the same
time, the old treatment plant on campus was reviewed in order to determine how this might be
used as a part of the long term plan.
Finally, staff were interviewed to determine how the departments operate, what was working
effectively and what might be needed in order to improve operations.
With this information in hand, a number of expansion and renovation options were prepared.
These options were then refined based on comments from senior level staff. Finally, a preferred
option was prepared and this is included herein as the proposed Master Plan.
Basis ofProposed Master Plan
In addition to the review of conditions, comments from staff and Oertel Architect's overall
impression of needs, facilities from other communities were reviewed to determine the
appropriateness of the master planning.
The following chart illustrates a few cities that have modern facilities which meet current and
short term needs, relative to Plymouth. Note that, while differences in operations and conditions
vary from city to city, there are many similarities between cities. Types of equipment, service
levels, staff sizes, types of operations remain relatively consistent between cities of the same size,
particularly suburban cities that have and will experience growth.
2
Page 3
City Population Current total
building area
Notes
Plymouth 72,600 92,300 sf Does not include the treatment plant.
Maple Grove F64,000 192,00 sf Includes room for long term expansion.
Woodbury 64,000 96,000 sf Expansion is likely in the near future.
Minnetonka 52,000 81,000 sf Expansion may not be needed.
Chanhassen 124,000 88,300 sf Includes some expansion space.
Scope and Description ofMaster Plan
During the process, the following needs were identified:
Additional storage areafor vehicles
A larger and more effective wash bay, one that will decrease operator time
A dedicated brine making and dispensing area
Much more shared or common space for maintenance employees
Additional office space
More locker and restroom space
Additional general storage
An additional, larger conference room
although the one at the treatment plant can be usedfor this)
What was not necessarily required, over the short term especially, was the following:
Additional mechanics and vehicle work bays
Dedicated shop space (provided other space isfreed -upfor this purpose)
Also note that a very large training room was considered and included earlier in the planning
process but it was determined, due to the high costs, that occasional training can take place at
other locations around the city.
It was also determined that the old treatment plant is the most cost effective way to provide more
space for the purposes indicated above. The primary fallback to the re -use ofthe treatment plant
building is the location of the existing staff /office area relative to the vehicle floor level. The
office floor level is approximately 5 feet above the vehicle storage floor level.
In order to connect upper staff areas to the vehicle area, the building will require an elevator, per
code, along with stairways. Given the odd existing floor to floor variation, ramping is required
as well. In an ideal world, the office floor would be at the same elevation as the vehicle storage
area as a single story office, or approximately ten feet higher, then usable as a two story office.
Since the purpose of the study was to look long term, and the costs to build all the space needed
by the City well into the future are considerable, a phasing plan was deemed important so that the
Page 4
City can plan, budget and provide additional space in phases.
The master plan, then, includes the following scope of work per phase:
Phase 1: Vehicle storage addition to the north of the existing public works building
Two stall wash bay built in conjunction with the vehicle storage expansion
Addition to the treatment plant with more staffareas, stair and elevator
Phase 2: Vehicle storage addition to the west of the existing public works building
Phase 3: Vehicle storage at the treatmentplant, either attached orfree standing building
Discussion on Vehicle Washing
It is our experience that the washing of public works and parks vehicles is critical to the
longevity ofthe fleet and appearance to the public. Decades ago, washing of vehicles was done
with garden hoses and then improved with use of a manual pressure washer. The current
building has a pressure washer system but only one truck can be cleaned at a time.
Automated systems have been available in the last fifteen years and they offer a number of
benefits. One of the goals of the study is to provide a new wash bay that will accommodate
several trucks at one time or considerably reduce operator time while making the clean-up
operation more efficient. With an automated system, staff are still able to use a manual pressure
unit but can also use an automated system, which saves considerable time with good results.
Our firm has studied differences between manual wash bays and automated ones. Typically, it
takes about 30 minutes to manually clean a plow truck. Even with this type of cleaning, the most
important part of the trucks, the undercarriage, is difficult if not even possible to clean.
With an automated system, including a dryer, the entire wash process takes less than five
minutes. A little more time would be needed if a pre -wash with a fire hose is needed during the
more extreme cold weather conditions. Regardless, while it would take, for example, over five
hours for a fleet often plow trucks to be washed manually, the same fleet would take less than
one hour with the automated system.
Further, and most pertinent to this study, an automated under -carriage wash would be able to
clean under -body areas that are otherwise difficult to reach manually.
While an automated system with dryers, costs about $180,000.00 (approximately $30,000.00 of
this for the under -carriage component) a good share of adding an automated system is for the
additional space it takes to accommodate the system equipment and drive-through space. On the
other hand, if two appropriately sized manual wash bays were to be included, the space and
building cost for either system would be about the same.
In the end, it was decided that a manual wash system should be considered, along with an
automated under -carriage system, housed within a double bay configuration, as a part of the
phase 1 work.
4
Page 5
Also note, by relocating the existing wash bay operation, the existing area can be converted to a
dedicated brine making and dispensing area.
Project costs
The following are the total project costs by phase:
Phase 1
Vehicle storage addition: $2,200,000.00
Wash bay addition w/equipment: $ 430,000.00
2 Story office addition at Treatment Plant: $ 860,000.00
Sub -total $3,490,000.00
Soft costs (A/E fees, borings, survey, inspec.) $ 380,000.00
Total cost estimate: $3,870,000.00
Phase 2.1
Vehicle storage addition: $ 790,000.00
Soft costs: $ 80,000.00
Total cost estimate: $ 870,000.00
Phase 2.2
Vehicle storage addition to Treatment Plant: $1,800,000.00
Soft costs: $ 180,000.00
Total cost estimate: $1,980,000.00
Notes: Costs provided do not include any contingency nor inflationary costs. It is recommended
that a modest contingency of 5 - 10% be used. As for inflation, it is recommended that 5% be
added to the costs for every year after 2014 that the project is started. This is just a starting point
as costs are expected to rise for the next several years.
5
Page 6
PHASE 1 - OPTION 1 -
A - ONE VEHICLE STORAGE ADDITION ON NORTH SIDE OF EXISTING FACILITY
B - WASH BAY OPTIONS:
AUTOMATED WASH BAY ATTACHED TO VEHICLE STORAGE ADDITION AT ON
NORTH SIDE OF BUILDING
C - FUEL ISLAND OPTIONS
CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION TO THE FUEL ISLAND, RELOCATE EXISTING
DISPENSERS AND INSTALL CANOPY.
D - FORMER WATER TREATMENT BUILDING
CONSTRUCT A LARGE, 2 STORY OFFICE ADDITION/EXPANSION. THIS
EXPANSION WILL HOUSE:
BREAK ROOM
RESTROOMS
LOCKER FACILITIES
PRIVATE OFFICES (3 OR 4)
OPEN OFFICE WORK SPACE
ELEVATOR AND STAIR
MAP 1 RECORDS ROOM
E - MAIN FACILITY OFFICE AREA I
INTERIOR RENOVATIONS 1 RE -APPROPRIATION OF VACATED SPACE WITH THE
RELOCATION OF SOME OFFICE FUNCTIONS TO THE OFFICE ADDITION AT THE
FORMER WATER TREATMENT BUILDING
F - BRINE MAKING
RENOVATE EXISTING WASH BAY AT MAIN BUILDING INTO BRINE MAKING
ROOM AND PROVIDE AREA FOR TWO BRINE TANKS AT EXTERIOR OF FACILITY.
PHASE 2 - OPTION 1
A - MAIN FACILITY
VEHICLE STORAGE 1 SHOP ADDITION AT FORMER SALT DOME LOCATION
PHASE 2 - OPTION 2
A - FORMER WATER TREATMENT BUILDING
VEHICLE PARKING 1 SHOP AREA ADDITION ON EAST SIDE OF EXISTING
BUILDING.
OPTION 1 - PHASE 1
DEPARTMENT
2STORY STAFF SPACE ADDITION
3400 S' 1FU"
OPTION 1 - PHASE 2.2
DEPARTMENT
TRAILERED VEHIOU STORAGEADDITION
PULLTHRODGFI
22550 GF
OERTEL
ARCHITECTS
1795 Saint Clair Avenue
ST. Paul, Minnesota 55105
651)696-5186 TO
651)696-5188 Fax
ww .oenclarchitQctg.com
PROJECT NAME:
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
PUBLIC WORKS
FACILITY STUDY
PLYMOUTH, MN
PROJECT NUMBER:
14-a4
DATE ISSUED:
WINTER 2014
DRAWN BY:
ANC
CHECKED BY:
A0
REVISIONS:
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS
DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED
BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT
SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM
A DULY REGISTERED ARCHITECT
IN THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
SIGNATURE
DATE
REGISTRATION
SHEET NAME:
PW SITE EXPANSION
MASTER PLAN
HEET NO: