HomeMy WebLinkAboutINS-11-022 - CMF Project Status Update1
Staff Re ort
p
Krr~.~-~~,i~iER ~nfrastru~ture Servrces Department www.kitthenerta
REPORT T0: Community and Infrastructure Services Committee
DATE OF MEETING: June 20, 2011
SUBMITTED BY: Pauline Houston, Deputy CAO Infrastructure Services
Department (ext. 2646)
PREPARED BY: Cynthia Fletcher, Director of Facilities Management 9ext.
2424)
WARD(S) INVOLVED: All
DATE OF REPORT: June, 2011
REPORT NO.: INS -11 - 022
SUBJECT: CONSOLIDATED MAINTENANCE FACILITY (CMF) (now
named Kitchener Operations Facility) PROJECT UPDATE -
JUNE 2011
RECOMMENDATION:
N/A. For information.
BACKGROUND:
The business case for a consolidated maintenance facility model was approved by Council in
November 2004, followed by an Environmental Assessment and site selection process which
was approved in November 2007. Application for grant funding under the Infrastructure
Stimulus Program provided additional of funding of $9.33 million which allowed for additional
facility enhancements and energy management features. Approval to proceed with these
enhancements was approved by Council in June 2009. The overall final project budget
recommendation was endorsed by Council in September 2009.
Some key points of rationale supporting the approval of this project included:
o The previous facilities were obsolete and required replacement (e.g. fleet bays too small
for modern sized vehicles; salt management did not meet current legislation; facilities
were cramped and too small for current size of the operation). This conclusion was
consistent with the various studies completed over the last 15 to 20 years
o Upgrades to existing facilities had been minimized for many years in anticipation of
moving to a new facility
o Current sites were too small to upgrade and expand on site
o Land value of current sites was greater than land value at CMF due to location (i.e.
ensures highest and best use of land) and allowed Region to expand their transit facility
without having to relocate, which has an overall community benefit.
o Cost of upgrading and expanding at existing locations was analyzed and was more
costly than the CMF solution (i.e. up to 30% higher)
o An environmental assessment report was completed for the selection of a new site(s) for
the new "Kitchener Service Centre" to comply with provincial requirements and to
11-1
1
Staff Re ort
p
Krr~.~-~~,i~iER ~nfrastru~ture Servrces Department www.kitthenerta
o Ensure a transparent process for the public. The report assessed a single site versus
multiple sites. It was concluded that the construction cost of a single site versus multiple
sites was about 30% lower and that it would be more likely to achieve anticipated
operating efficiencies.
o Size of new facility will accommodate future growth to 2040, based on the current
operations to be housed. If more staff were to be relocated from other facilities (e.g.
City Hall), that would change the projection
o Location is fairly central to the city and was selected based on detailed analysis of travel
time/distance to ensure response times would be at least as good as current locations
o City can show leadership in the community for the environment by introducing
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards in this facility
o Consolidating operations will result in operating efficiencies and minimize future
operating costs compared to current model
The vision for the consolidated maintenance facility includes components related to the facility
itself as well as for the workplace culture. Combined, the vision for the new facility and
workplace culture will support staff in providing enhanced services to the community by
delivering services more efficiently, leading to faster response times and improved quality;
meeting and exceeding service and safety standards; offering services that respond to the
changing needs and growth of the community; making a positive difference in the community;
responsibly using the city's physical assets; and going the extra mile to serve customers.
Efficiencies of the consolidated facility approach include:
o Energy efficiencies through LEED construction standards (e.g. geothermal, high
efficiency heating and lighting systems, water reclamation, cistern). It should be noted
that from a net bottom line perspective, these energy efficiencies will not fully offset the
increased cost of heating and lighting a larger facility (138,000 sq. ft. versus 300,000 sq.
ft.)
o Solar roof will have a positive impact on net operating budget after project payback
period
o Streamlined operations (indoor storage of first response vehicles to ensure prompt
response to emergencies and snow events; dedicated fuel, wash and inspect process to
increase productivity; improved fleet utilization through single facility access and
improved monitoring systems -fleet booking, key management, etc.; combined central
administration, fleet, stores and tool cribs to improve internal customer service levels)
On November 8, 2010, the previous Council received staff report CSD-10-073 which provided a
status update on the consolidated maintenance facility (CMF) project to that point in time.
REPORT:
This report provides a status update on the CMF project from November 1, 2010 to June, 2011.
1. Proiect Status
The project is over 95% complete in terms of construction and all the related staff
(approximately 450) from other facilities, including Bramm, Chandler, Strasburg, Elmsdale and
City Hall have been relocated to the new facility. The relocation process occurred over a two
11-2
1
Staff Re ort
p
Krr~.~-~~,i~iER ~nfrastru~ture Servrces Department www.kitthenerta
and one-half month period and ran very smoothly, with minimal service disruptions for the
public. Some examples of construction components to be completed over the summer months
include installation of the de-watering area, minor landscaping, signage, resolution of
construction related deficiencies.
LEED application: Official application for LEED designation will be made in September.
Based on the information collected to date, we expect to achieve a Silver designation. The
final outcome of the LEED application will not be known for several months, possibly early 2012.
Some examples of the LEED features or credits in this building include:
o Largest solar roof in Canada
o Geothermal heating
o Cistern
o Water reclamation for vehicle wash bays
o Building Automation and Controls systems
o Low-Emitting Materials: Adhesives, Paint, Carpet
o Recycled Materials
o Regional Materials
o Daylighting
o Innovation in design
People-Process and Service Integration and Improvement
An important component of this project was the extensive review of processes to identify
opportunities for improvement. Examples of identified service improvementslefficiencies to date
include:
^ Indoor vehicle parking capabilities, protecting first-response vehicles from the weather, to
allow them to warm up and get out on the road quicker to serve the public
^ Larger fleet service bays that will accommodate vehicles that are hooked up to other
equipment, such as snow plows; full disassembly will no longer be required, saving time
^ Improved efficiency and use of vehicles and equipment; elimination of duplicated vehicles
and equipment
^ Streamlined process for vehicle fuelling, washing and inspection will result in faster
turnaround times
^ Records Management: development of a centralized file room and associated work
processes which will reduce risk and improve MFIPPA Freedom of Information legislation)
compliance through easier access to information; in addition, through planning for the
transition to the centralized space, over 150 boxes of inactive records have already been
inventoried, reviewed and destroyed -this equates to 50 file drawers of equipment that did
not require new filing cabinets, space oroff-site.
^ Waste Management: more efficient and environmentally friendly processes, reduction in the
amounts of waste going to landfill, and identification of potential revenue streams for
materials e.g. scrap metal, copper, wood
^ Stores and Tool Cribs: Integrating multiple facilities into one will result in consistent
processes with respect to how tools and materials are accessed and returned by staff.
A detailed documentation of identified efficiencies has been undertaken and will be used to
assist in measuring project success by year end 2011.
11-3
1
Staff Re ort
p
Krr~.~-~~,i~iER ~nfrastru~ture Servrces Department www.kitthenerta
Process improvement review work will continue after relocation to identify further opportunities
for improvement and efficiency. This work will be led by the Manager of Service Co-ordination
and Improvement for the Infrastructure Services department.
Impact of new Facility on Current Staff Complement and Operating Budget
Operating efficiencies for this project are not expected to translate into operating budget
reductions, however, these efficiencies will mean cost avoidance.
o Since the business case was prepared in 2004, there has been 7 years of growth in the
City which has resulted in the following:
0 82% increase in turf to maintain
0 14% increase in roads to maintain
0 14% increase in gas customers and infrastructure to maintain
0 18% increase in number of vehicles to maintain
0 14% increase in stock to manage
o Overall impact of growth is a need for increased staff complement of 14% to 21
o Increased size of facility will also increase number of custodial and facilities
management staff required
o During that same period, staff complement has increased between 0% and 5%,
depending on work area, and including redeployment of existing unbudgeted staff from
revenue generating functions to core service areas
o CMF business case efficiencies equate to about 3% overall savings
o Net gaplshortfall in staff complement after considering efficiencies is about 11
o Legislative requirements have increased resulting in a need for increased service levels
and response times (e.g. pesticide ban, sidewalk maintenance standards, freedom of
information legislation, increased litigation claims which increases need for supporting
data)
o Work areas have implemented other efficiencies in operations in order to cope with this
gap (e.g. review of operations routing; introducing larger equipment to manage turf)
o Workloads per employee have been maxed out
o Service levels in many areas have declined as a result
While efficiencies in operations will assist in minimizing the cost of operations at the new facility,
the staff complement has not kept pace with growth and new legislative requirements. It will
continue to be a struggle to meet service level demands unless additional resources are
provided and/or further efficiencies are found and/or service levels are reduced.
2. Budget
From a cost management viewpoint, project spending is strictly controlled and within the
allocated budget. Council has approved project funding of $48.2 million for the base budget
plus $14 million for infrastructure funded enhancements and LEED components. To ensure
spending remains on track, the project's cost management team reviews project finances on
a regular basis (refer to Appendix A). The final financial report on costs for this project will be
complete later this year (October/November), once all project components are completed and
final invoices are received and reconciled. Another key component to this project budget is the
revenue to be generated by land sales. The sale of two properties: Elmsdale and a portion of
Battler remain outstanding and are expected to be sold within 6 to 12 months.
11-4
1
Staff Re ort
p
Krr~.~-~~,i~iER ~nfrastru~ture Servrces Department www.kitthenerta
ALIGNMENT WITH CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN:
Theme: Efficient and Effective Government
Goal: To position the municipality as a leader in public sector policy, processes and systems
Strategic Direction: Ensure accountability and transparency in all public processes.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
N/A.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
A full and detailed communications strategy for the CMF project has been in place that targeted
all of the audiences and stakeholders who will be affected either directly or indirectly by the new
facility, including city staff, city council, the general public and the residents of nearby Hidden
Valley. The strategy also included tools and methods for reaching all of these audiences with
information as the project progresses, and especially at significant project milestones.
CONCLUSION:
The CMF project has been a major and high priority project for the organization, for over three
years. Construction is now over 95% complete. The relocation of staff is complete. The
original project budget commitment continues to be maintained. The project team will wind up
and dissolve over the summer months of 2011 and Council will receive a final project report in
the fall of 2011.
This report is submitted on behalf of the CMF Project Steering Committee comprised of:
Pauline Houston, Deputy CAO, Infrastructure Services Department (project sponsor)
Cynthia Fletcher, Director of Facilities Management (project director)
Larry Gordon, Director of Supply Services
Uvally Malcolm, Director of Utilities
Don Miller, Director of Fleet
Jim vvitmer, Director of Operations
Grant Murphy, Director of Engineering
Hans Gross, Director of Asset Management
John McBride, Director of Transportation Planning
Jeannie Murphy, Manager of Corporate Contact Centre
ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Pauline Houston, Deputy CAO, Infrastructure Services Department
11-5
D
~- ,o
ca ~ ~
L O
~ N
~ ~ m
~ N N
N- C) ~ ~ ~
OO O O ~
O ~ .-~ ~ ~ ~
In O 0000000
M ~
f~
~ 00 O O O N O ~f`InOON ~ a0
~~~ 00 O O 0 ~ O MOI~OMI` O 00
~ 000 O O O ~ ~ ~~~OoOf~ N ~
O~ 000 O ~ O O o0 ~~NO~f~ M CO
~~
~~ ~ONOOOOOOOOO O OOOOOCO~C0O~O (~ O
~ ~ 00000000000 In OOOOOO~f~~ 00 In
~ ~ ~0MOOOOOO(0O0 M ~MOOOMOf` 000 M
• ~000OOOOOO~MOM O NOOOOln00~ ~O 0
O
L M o0 M M C0 00 00 0 f~ ~ O f` O ~ O O O In ~~ N o0 0 (~
a ~Mo0MOOOO~O~~
`. .~ I` oO~N~M00~o0 MN f`
~ O MMM~CONN N N~ M N
~ ~ .......~ .. ~ .. O N M (~
N O 0 In ~ ~
U O O In (~ 00
~ ~ In I~ M M
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ O O
~ M N N 0 0
~ ~ O ~ N N
~ ~ ~ ~
U
C
W
c i f` O O O O O
~ ii ~ o ~ ~ O
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~
~ ~ ~ ~
~
~ ~ ~
~ ~
°
v O
~ O ~
O
~ N c
D c
i C
O O
° .~ ..
m
U
a .~
a
Q
N ~ NOOOO OMOO (4 0000 00000 M f`
N ~ X0000 OMOO ~ o0NOO0 OOOON ~ 00
~ ~ MOOOO 0000
~ ~ X0000 1nOOOf~
~ M a0
-m+~ ~ 000000 ln(DOM N N~O~O f~OOOf` f~ ~
U N
C~ O M M C0 00 00 f~ f~ O f` I~ ~ f` O o0 l~ M O 0 0 1`
~ M CO
0 M o0MOOO ~O~ln
~ 0 OOON~M ~I
MO~ N N
0
~ ~~~ C~~N
~ 0 C4 NM 00 N 00 ~
U~m ~ ~ N ~ ~
Q
Q
a
~
~ ~ N 00000000000 I` O1~ONf~ ~~ ~ 00 0
~ V f` 00OOOOO~OO~
~ OOOOOONOOIn N
M o000O~o0 MO N
~NOOIn ~O O 0
O O
f~
Q ~ ~ ~OOOOOC0OO1~ O N~O~O ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ M N
O COM000000OOO0N ~ ~000~ lnO In ~ M
N lnMlnlnlt~lnf~O~ln O oOCON N CO CO M f~
O I` NNN ~MN O NM ~ 0 N
~ ~ .~ .~ .. ...~ ..
.~ .~ ~
.~ N M ~ ~
N
N
~ ~
L N ~
~ i= N ~
'~
~ ~ N 0
N
>,
a
cc~°c~ a~~U ~~ NUS °
c
~ m
U~C~~c
~
o o
n
n
~
~ ~ccn~
c
•~-~~~~~~E ~~ N ~.Oa~o~~
~
~~ooooo00 0~ n "~c~~~n° N
C ~
' N O N
(~ ~ O N -
~
~
~~~~~~~ ~~
N O
0 U~ >'
N
> U C~ C C C C C C~ ~ U ~ p
~
O
~~ O O O O O O O N O~ C ~ 0 N~ +r ~~ U ~
~+r+~+r+r+~+r+r ~+~U cn ~ ~~ NQ O O ~(~ N N
N
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t6 ~ 0 ~ N O ±' ~ 0 C 0~ t~ 0+~ ~ ~
N
~ L ~. ~. C ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ °.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W
c °
~~~~~~~
~~ c
N
~
~ °
°
~
~
~ ~
~
> p L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (~ O• X ~ Q p O L D (6 ~ N '~ O +, }'
C
U ~ ~
~ 11C~000UUUUJUW ~
X JUQ~m200~ a
L